Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wings In Orbit
Scientific and Engineering
Legacies of the Space Shuttle
1971-2010
ii
To the courageous
men and women who devoted
their lives in pursuit
of excellence in the
Space Shuttle Program.
iii
We were honored and privileged to fly the shuttle’s first orbital flight into space
Foreword
aboard Columbia on April 12, 1981. It was the first time anyone had crewed a space
launch vehicle that hadn’t been launched unmanned. It also was the first vehicle
John Young to use large solid rockets and the first with wings to reenter the Earth’s atmosphere and
STS-1 Commander
land on a runway. All that made it a great mission for a couple of test pilots.
Robert Crippen
That first mission proved the vehicle could do the basics for which it had been
STS-1 Pilot
designed: to launch, operate on orbit, and reenter the Earth’s atmosphere and land
on a runway. Subsequent flights proved the overall capability of the Space Shuttle.
The program went on to deploy satellites, rendezvous and repair satellites, operate as
a microgravity laboratory, and ultimately build the International Space Station.
The Space Shuttle Program has also served as an inspiration for young people to
study science, technology, engineering, and math, which is so important to the future
of our nation.
The Space Shuttle is an engineering marvel perhaps only exceeded by the station
itself. The shuttle was based on the technology of the 1960s and early 1970s.
It had to overcome significant challenges to make it reusable. Perhaps the greatest
challenges were the main engines and the Thermal Protection System.
The program has seen terrible tragedy in its 3 decades of operation, yet it has also
seen marvelous success. One of the most notable successes is the Hubble Space
Telescope, a program that would have been a failure without the shuttle’s capability
to rendezvous, capture, repair, as well as upgrade. Now Hubble is a shining example
of success admired by people around the world.
As the program comes to a close, it is important to capture the legacy of the shuttle
for future generations. That is what “Wings In Orbit” does for space fans, students,
engineers, and scientists. This book, written by the men and women who made
the program possible, will serve as an excellent reference for building future space
vehicles. We are proud to have played a small part in making it happen.
iv
Preface and “. . . because I know also life is a shuttle.
I am in haste; go along with me. . .”
Acknowledgments – Shakespeare, The Merry Wives of Windsor, Act V Scene 1
We, the editors of this book, can relate to this portion of a quote by the English
bard, for our lives have been entwined with the Space Shuttle Program for over
3 decades. It is often said that all grand journeys begin with a small first step.
Our journey to document the scientific and engineering accomplishments of this
magnificent winged vehicle began with an audacious proposal: to capture the
passion of those who devoted their energies to its success while answering the
question “What are the most significant accomplishments?” of the longest-
operating human spaceflight program in our nation’s history. This is intended to
be an honest, accurate, and easily understandable account of the research and
innovation accomplished during the era. We hope you will enjoy this book and
take pride in the nation’s investment in NASA’s Space Shuttle Program.
The following generously provided insights about the Space Shuttle Program:
James Abrahamson, Arnold Aldrich, Stephen Altemus, Kenneth Baldwin,
Baruch Blumberg, Aaron Cohen, Ellen Conners, Robert Crippen, Jeanie Engle,
Jack Fischer, William Gerstenmaier, Milton Heflin, Thomas Holloway,
Jack Kaye, Christopher Kraft, David Leckrone, Robert Lindstrom, William Lucas,
Glynn Lunney, Hans Mark, John Mather, Leonard Nicholson, William Parsons,
Brewster Shaw, Robert Sieck, Bob Thompson, J.R.Thompson, Thomas Utsman,
Edward Weiler, John Young, and Laurence Young.
We also gratefully acknowledge the support of Susan Breeden for technical editing,
Cindy Bush for illustrations, and Perry Jackson for graphic design.
v
Table of Contents iii Dedication
vi Table of Contents
x Introduction—Charles Bolden
vi
319 Major Scientific Discoveries
320 The Space Shuttle and Great Observatories
344 Atmospheric Observations
and Earth Imaging
360 Mapping the Earth: Radars and Topography
370 Astronaut Health and Performance
408 The Space Shuttle: A Platform That Expanded
the Frontiers of Biology
420 Microgravity Research in the Space Shuttle Era
444 Space Environments
517 Appendix
518 Flight Information
530 Program Managers/Acknowledgments
531 Selected Readings
535 Acronyms
536 Contributors’ Biographies
542 Index
vii
Editorial Board Wayne Hale
Chair
Iwan Alexander
Frank Benz
Steven Cash
Robert Crippen
Steven Dick
Michael Duncan
Diane Evans
Steven Hawley
Milton Heflin
David Leckrone
James Owen
Robert Sieck
Michael Wetmore
John Young
viii
Witnessing the Launch of
the Shuttle Atlantis
Howard Nemerov
Poet Laureate of the United States
1963-1964 and 1988-1990
© Howard Nemerov. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. All rights reserved.
ix
It is an honor to be invited to write the introduction for this tribute to the Space Shuttle,
Introduction yet the invitation presents quite an emotional challenge. In many ways, I lament the
coming of the end of a great era in human spaceflight. The shuttle has been a crown
Charles Bolden jewel in NASA’s human spaceflight program for over 3 decades. This spectacular flying
machine has served as a symbol of our nation’s prowess in science and technology
as well as a demonstration of our “can-do” attitude. As we face the fleet’s retirement,
it is appropriate to reflect on its accomplishments and celebrate its contributions.
The Space Shuttle Program was a major leap forward in our quest for space exploration.
It prepared us for our next steps with a fully operational International Space Station and
has set the stage for journeys to deep-space destinations such as asteroids and, eventually,
Mars. Our desire to explore more of our solar system is ambitious and risky, but its
rewards for all humanity are worth the risks. We, as a nation and a global community,
are on the threshold of taking an even greater leap toward that goal.
All the dedicated professionals who worked in the Space Shuttle team—NASA civil
servants and contractors alike—deserve to be proud of their accomplishments in
spite of the constant presence of skeptics and critics and the demoralizing losses of
Challenger (1986) and Columbia (2003) and their dedicated crews. Some of these
scientists and engineers contributed to a large portion of this book. Their passion and
enthusiasm is evident throughout the pages, and their words will take you on a journey
filled with challenges and triumphs. In my view, this is a truly authentic account by
people who were part of the teams that worked tirelessly to make the program
successful. They have been the heart, mind, spirit, and very soul that brought these
amazing flying machines to life.
Unlike any engineering challenge before, the Space Shuttle launched as a rocket, served
as an orbital workstation and space habitat, and landed as a glider. The American
engineering that produced the shuttle was innovative for its time, providing capabilities
beyond our expectations in all disciplines related to the process of launching, working
in space, and returning to Earth. We learned with every succeeding flight how to operate
more efficiently and effectively in space, and this knowledge will translate to all future
space vehicles and the ability of their crews to live and work in space.
The Space Shuttle was a workhorse for space operations. Satellite launching, repair,
and retrieval provided the satellite industry with important capabilities. The Department
of Defense, national security organizations, and commercial companies used the shuttle
to support their ambitious missions and the resultant accomplishments. Without the
shuttle and its servicing mission crews, the magnificent Hubble Space Telescope
astronomical science discoveries would not have been possible. Laboratories carried
in the payload bay of the shuttles provided opportunities to use microgravity’s attributes
for understanding human health, physical and material sciences, and biology. Shuttle
x
research advanced our understanding of planet Earth, our own star—the sun—and our
atmosphere and oceans. From orbit aboard the shuttle, astronaut crews collected hundreds
of thousands of Earth observation images and mapped 90% of Earth’s land surface.
My personal change and growth as a Space Shuttle crew member are emblematic of the
valuable contribution to strengthening the global community that operating the shuttle
encouraged and facilitated. I was honored and privileged to close out my astronaut
career as commander of the first Russian-American shuttle mission, STS-60 (1994).
From space, Earth has no geographic boundaries between nations, and the common
dreams of the people of these myriad nations are realizable when we work toward the
common mission of exploring our world from space. The International Space Station,
the completion of which was only possible with the shuttle, further emphasizes the
importance of international cooperation as nations including Russia, Japan, Canada, and
the member nations of the European Space Agency join the United States to ensure that
our quest for ever-increasing knowledge of our universe continues to move forward.
We have all been incredibly blessed to have been a part of the Space Shuttle Program.
The “Remarkable Flying Machine” has been an unqualified success and will
remain forever a testament to the ingenuity, inventiveness, and dedication of the
NASA-contractor team. Enjoy this book. Learn more about the shuttle through the eyes
of those who helped make it happen, and be proud of the human ingenuity that made
this complex space vehicle a timeless icon and an enduring legacy.
xi
Magnificent
Flying Machine—
A Cathedral
to Technology
Lower left: 1903 Wright Flyer; right: Douglas aircraft DC-3 of 1935. Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, Washington, DC. (photos by Wayne Hale)
The Astronauts
In the final analysis, space travel is all
about people. In 133 flights, the Space
Shuttle provided nearly 850 seats to
orbit. Many people have been to orbit
more than once, so the total number
of different people who have flown to
space on all spacecraft (Vostok,
Mercury, Voskhod, Gemini, Soyuz,
Apollo, Shenzhou, and the shuttle)
in the last 50 years is just under 500.
Of that number, over 400 have flown on
the Space Shuttle. Almost three times
as many people flew to space on the
National Security
That morning, they did encounter a serious problem. With fewer than
2 hours until launch, the crew of Space Transportation System (STS)-1
locked the faceplates onto their helmets, only to find that they could not
breathe. To avoid scrubbing the mission, the crew members looked at
the issue and asked Loren Shriver, the astronaut support pilot, to help
them. Finding a problem with the oxygen hose quick disconnect, Shriver
tightened the line with a pair of pliers, and the countdown continued.
At 27 seconds before launch, Crippen realized that this time they were
actually going to fly. His heart raced to 130 beats per minute while
Young’s heart, that of a veteran commander, stayed at a calm 85 beats.
Young later joked, “I was excited too. I just couldn’t get my heart to
beat any faster.” At 7:00 a.m., Columbia launched, making its maiden
voyage into Earth orbit on the 20th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin’s
historic first human flight into space (1961).
Contract
Contra
a Awar
act Award
Award
Program Office
fice
Design
Design
Offi
Critica
Critical
al Design Review
a
Established
stablished
Manufacture
M
Manufacture
Program
Rollou
Rollout
ut or Other D
u Delivery
rogram A
Operations
O perations
Program
Enterprise
E
Orbiter
Enterprise/Columbia Columbia
P
Richard
Richard Nixon
Nixon Gerald
Gerald Ford
Ford
1
1971
971 1
1972
972 1
1973
973 1
1974
974 1
1975
975
Approach
Approach and
an
nd Landing
Land
ding Tests
Tests First Launch Stack
Columbia
Main Engine
External
External Tank
Tank
Solid Rocket Booster
Bo
oosterr
o
James Carter
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1
Ronald Reagan
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
STS-26
S TS-26
Return
R
Retur n to Flight
STS-51L Main Engine STS-30 STS-31
Challenger Accidentt Upgrade Magellan Hubble
Columbia
* Endeavour
Endeavo
our Construction
o u
Discovery
Atlantis
S
STS-63
Mir
M Rendezvous
Ren
George
George H. W.
W. Bush William Clinton
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 199
STS-91
Alpha Magnetic
Ma
agnet
a
Spectrometer
Spectrom
m
meter Test
Test
STS-82 STS-88
Second Hubble Servicing
Serv
v
vicing rst ISS Mission
First ission - 2A
2 IS 4A
ISS
Columbia
Endeavour
u
Discovery
Atlantis
a
William Clinton
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
ISS 11A
Inboard
InboardTTruss
russ
ISS 5A STS-107
I Destiny
US Lab Desti
tiiny Columbia Accident STS-114
Retur
Returnn to
Columbia Flight
Endeavour
Discovery
Disc
covery
Atlantis
Atlanttis
George
George W.
W. Bush
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200
STS-134
Alpha Magnetic
STS-118 Spectr ometerr,
Spectrometer,
Educator Station Payload
Mission
Specialist ISS 20A
Node 3, Cupola
STS-133
IISS 12A ISS
ISS 10A STS-125
Second Solar
S
So Array rd Solar Array
Third
Thir Last Hubble
le Repair
ir
Endeavour
Discovery
Atlantis
George
George W.
W. Bush Barack Obama
PROJECTED
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
The shuttle’s 100th mission (STS-92) left the orbital workshop. Of the Station Robotic Arm, an airlock, and
launched from KSC in October 2000, historic mission, Lead Flight Director a mobile transporter, among other
marking a major milestone for the Chuck Shaw said, “STS-92/ISS things. By the end of 2002, NASA
Space Shuttle and the International Mission 3A opens the next chapter had flown 16 assembly flights. Flying
Space Station Programs. The in the construction of the International the shuttle seemed fairly routine until
construction crew delivered and Space Station,” when human beings February 2003, when Columbia
installed the initial truss—the first from around the world would disintegrated over East Texas, resulting
permanent latticework structure—which permanently occupy the space base. in the loss of the shuttle and her
set the stage for the future addition of seven-member crew.
Crews began living and working in
trusses. The crew also delivered a
the station in the fall of 2000, when the
docking port and other hardware to
first resident crew (Expedition 1) of Columbia Accident
the station. Four spacewalkers spent
Sergei Krikalev, William Shepherd,
more than 27 hours outside the shuttle The cause of the Columbia accident
and Yuri Gidzenko resided in the space
as they reconfigured these new elements was twofold. The physical cause
station for 4 months. For the next
onto the station. The seven-member resulted from the loss of insulating
3 years, the shuttle and her crews were
crew also prepared the station for the foam from the External Tank, which
the station’s workhorse. They
first resident astronauts, who docked hit the Orbiter’s left wing during launch
transferred crews; delivered supplies;
with the station 14 days after the crew and created a hole. When Columbia
installed modules, trusses, the Space
Post-Columbia Accident not have been nearly as successful as we have been so far in assembling
Return to Flight the ISS. The Space Shuttle again proved its flexibility and capability for ISS
construction missions.
In 2005, STS-114 returned NASA to
flying in space. Astronaut Eileen “Upon our landing (STS-92), I realized that my shuttle days were behind me.
Collins commanded the first of two I was about to begin training for ISS. But on that afternoon, as we walked around
Return to Flight missions, which
and under Discovery, I savored the moment and felt a mixture of awe, satisfaction,
were considered test flights. The first
mission tested and evaluated new and a little sadness. Shuttle, to me, represents a triumph and remains to this day
flight safety procedures as well as a technological marvel. We learned so much from the program, not only in the
inspection and repair techniques advancement of science and international relations, but also from what works and
for the vehicle. One of the changes what doesn’t on a reusable vehicle. The lessons learned from shuttle will make
was the addition of an approximately future US spacecraft more reliable, safer, and cost effective.
15-m (50-ft) boom to the end of the
robotic arm. This increased astronauts’ “I love the Space Shuttle. I am proud and honored to be a part of its history
capabilities to inspect the tile located and legacy.”
40
Mission Complexity Index
30
20
10
0 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Over the 30 years of the Space Shuttle Program, missions became more complex with increased understanding of the use of this vehicle,
thereby producing increased capabilities. This diagram illustrates the increasing complexity as well as the downtime between the major
accidents—Challenger and Columbia.
Seventeen years later, in 2003, NASA lost a second shuttle and crew—Space
Transportation System (STS)-107. The events that led up to the loss of
Columbia were eerily similar to those surrounding Challenger. As with
Challenger, the vehicle talked to the program but no one understood. Loss of
foam from the ET had been a persistent problem in varying degrees for the
entire program. When it occurred on STS-107, many doubted that a
lightweight piece of foam could damage the resilient shuttle. It made no
sense, but that is what happened. Dedicated people missed the obvious. In
the end, foam damaged the wing to such an extent that the crew and vehicle
could not safely reenter the Earth’s atmosphere. Just as with Challenger,
there was no opportunity to heroically “save the day” as the data from the
vehicle disappeared and it became clear that friends and colleagues were
lost. Disbelief was the first reaction, and then a pall of grief and devastation
descended on the NASA family of operators, engineers, and managers.
Making the boosters and main engines All NASA centers concentrated on how Flight mission, which focused on safety
more robust became extremely they could make the system better and and included a series of revised
important for engineers at MSFC and safer. For civil servants and contractors, procedures and processes at the centers.
Thiokol. The engineers and astronauts the recovery from the accident was not At KSC, for instance, new policies
at JSC threw themselves into just business. It was personal. Working were instituted for 24-hour operations
developing an escape system and toward Return to Flight was almost a to avoid the fatigue and excessive
protective launch and re-entry suits religious experience that restored the overtime noted by the Rogers
and improving the flight preparation shattered confidence of the workforce. Commission. NASA implemented the
process. All of the improvements NASA Safety Reporting System. Safety,
NASA instituted a robust flight
then had to be incorporated into the reliability, maintainability, and quality
preparation process for the Return to
KSC vehicle processing efforts. assurance staff increased considerably.
13:55:23 to 13:55:27
13:53:46 Debris Shower A
Debris 1
13:53:48 13:55:24
Debris 2 13:54:33 Debris 8
Flash 1 13:55:27
13:54:36 Debris 10
Debris 6
13:55:45
San 13:55:05 Debris 12
co
Francisco Debris 7 13:55:37
Debris 11
13:54:09 14:00:05.7
Debris 5 Late Flash 1
13:53:56 13:55:56
Debris 3 13:54:02 Debris 13 13:55:58 14:00:06.7
Debris 4 Debris 14 Late Flash 2
13:55:18 13:56:10
Debris 7A Debris 15 13:57:24
14:00:02 14:00:10
Los Debris 16 Debris B
Angeles 13:55:40 Debris D
Debris 11B 14:00:03 14:00:11 14:00:12
13:55:39 Debris C Debris F
Debris 11A 13:55:44 Debris E
Debris 11C
14:00:15
Debris Shower
Phoenix 13:57:54 13:59:47
7
San Flare 1 Debris A F
Fort
Diego 13:58:00 Wo t
Worth allas
s
Dallas
Flare 2 14:00:18.3
Catastrophic
Event
El Paso
00:00:00 = Hours: Minutes: Seconds
STS-107 Global Positioning Satellite Trajectory
Austin
Houston
STS-107 Predicted Trajectory
Debris Event San Antonio
Video Observer
Major City
The Cold War between the United States and the Union of Soviet
Jeff DeTroye
James Armor Socialist Republics (USSR), which had played such a large role in the
Sebastian Coglitore initiation of the Apollo Program, was also an important factor in the
James Grogan decisions that formed and guided the Space Shuttle Program. The United
Michael Hamel
States feared that losing the Cold War (1947-1991) to the USSR could
David Hess
Gary Payton result in Soviet mastery over the globe. Since there were few direct
Katherine Roberts conflicts between the United States and the USSR, success in space was
Everett Dolman an indicator of which country was ahead—which side was winning.
Having lost the tactical battles of first satellite and first human in orbit,
the United States had recovered and spectacularly won the race to the
moon. To counter the successful US man-on-the-moon effort, the USSR
developed an impressive space station program. By the early 1980s, the
USSR had launched a series of space stations into Earth orbit. The
Soviets were in space to stay, and the United States could not be viewed
as having abdicated leadership in space after the Apollo Program.
Strategic Defense
Initiative Test
overlapped those done by Hennan mission (STS-53) are the only the 10 years of shuttle missions,
with his experiments; however, NASA acknowledged examples of this policy. 11 of the 52 missions were dedicated
Mission Specialist Mario Runco and to NSS programs. The end of
A year later in December 1992,
the rest of the NASA crew performed NSS-dedicated shuttle missions
STS-53 was launched with a classified
the M88-1 experiments. This activity resulted from the rising costs of shuttle
payload called “DoD-1” on a 7-day
used a digital camera to produce missions and policy decisions made
mission. Marty Faga, assistant secretary
images that could be evaluated on as a result of the Challenger accident.
of the USAF (space), said: “STS-53
orbit. Observations were to be radioed There were few NSS-dedicated
marks a milestone in our long and
to tactical field users seconds after missions relative to the enthusiastic
productive partnership with NASA.
the observation pass was complete. plans laid in the late 1970s; however,
We have enjoyed outstanding support
Emphasis was on coordinating the Space Shuttle Program had a
from the Space Shuttle Program.
observations with ongoing DoD lasting impact on the NSS programs.
Although this is the last dedicated
exercises to fully assess the military While the number of NSS-dedicated
shuttle payload, we look forward to
benefits of a spaceborne observer. missions was small, the partnership
continued involvement with the program
The policy implications of using NASA between the NSS programs and NASA
with DoD secondary payloads.”
astronauts to provide input directly to had a lasting impact.
military forces on the ground during With the landing of STS-53 at
shuttle missions have long been Kennedy Space Center, the NSS/NASA
debated. This flight and the following partnership came to an end. During
Buran/Energiya shuttle and heavy-lift booster, built by the USSR, flew once—uncrewed—in 1988.
Extravehicular Activity
Operations and Advancements
The most impressive product that resulted from the shuttle’s capabilities
and contributions is the International Space Station—a massive
engineering assembly and construction undertaking in space.
Orbiter
External
Exter nal Tank
Tank
Internal Stringers
Forward-Center Segment
Aft-Center Segment
Avionics
Three Aft Attach Struts
Systems Tunnel (External Tank attach ring)
Aft Segment
With Nozzle
Aft Booster
Case Stiffener Rings Separation
Motor
Aft Skirt
Low-pressure
High-pressure Oxidizer
Oxidizer Turbopump
Turbopump
Main
Injector
Low-pressure
Fuel Turbopump
High-pressure
Fuel Turbopump
Controller
Main
Combustion
Chamber
Nozzle
Monomethylhydrazine and
Space Shuttle Reusability Nitrogen Tetroxide Tanks
Elevon
Orbital Maneuvering
System Deorbit Burn
Entry Interface
Elevation 122 km
External Tank Separation (400,000 ft)
Mission Time approx. 0:08:50
About 7,963 km
Main Engine Cutoff (4,300 nautical miles)
Mission Time approx. 0:08:32 from Landing Site
Elevation 117 km (383,000 ft)
Solid Rocket
Booster Separation
Mission Time
approx. 0:02:02 Landing
Elevation 50 km Speed 364 kph
(163,000 ft) (196 knots or 226 mph)
Flight Deck
Forward
Control
Thrusters
Nose Gear
Middeck
Electrical System
Fuel Cells
Main Landing Gear
Reaction Control
System Jets
Orbital
Maneuvering
System Engines
Reaction Control
System Jets
Jets
Orbital
Maneuvering
System
Jets Engine
Reaction
Control
System
Jets
vehicle. Of the 44 thrusters, six were were vernier thrusters. The thrusters The general purpose computers also
Reaction Control Systems and each were installed on the Orbiter in such a controlled the tight Orbiter attitude
had a thrust level of only 111 newtons way that both the rotational and the and pointing capability via the Orbiter
(25 pounds-force). The remaining translational control was provided to Digital Auto Pilot—a key piece of
38 thrusters were considered primary each of the Orbiter’s six axes of control application software within the
thrusters and each had a thrust level of with each axis having either two or computers. During orbit operations,
3,825 newtons (860 pounds-force). three thrusters available for control. the Digital Auto Pilot was the primary
means for the crew to control Orbiter
The total thruster complement was The Orbital Maneuvering System
pointing by the selection of different
divided between the forward thrusters provided propulsion for the shuttle.
attitude and attitude rate deadbands,
located forward of the crew cabin, and During the orbit phase of the flight, it
which varied between +/-1.0 and
the aft thrusters located on the two was used for the orbital maneuvers
5.0 degrees for attitude and +/-0.02 and
Orbital Maneuvering System pods in needed to achieve orbit after the Main
0.2 deg/sec for attitude rate. The Digital
the tail of the Orbiter. The forward Propulsion System had shut down.
Auto Pilot could perform three-axis
thrusters (total of 16) consisted of It was also the primary propulsion
automatic maneuver, attitude tracking,
14 primary thrusters and two vernier system for orbital transfer maneuvers
and rotation about any axis or body
thrusters. Of the 28 thrusters in the aft, and the deorbit maneuver.
vector. Crew interface to the Digital
24 were primary thrusters and four
Sensor
STS-88 (1998)
Endeavour’s Shuttle
Robotic Arm grapples the
Boom Russian Module Zarya
for berthing onto the
International Space Station
(ISS) Node 1, thus
beginning the assembly
sequence for the ISS.
Robotic Arm/Operational
Capability
The Canadian Space Agency provided
the Shuttle Robotic Arm. It was
designed, built, and tested by Spar
Aerospace Ltd., a Canadian Company.
The electromechanical arm measured
about 15 m (50 ft) long and 0.4 m
(15 in.) in diameter with a six-degree-
of-freedom rotational capability, and
it consisted of a manipulator arm that
was under the control of the crew via
displays and control panels located in
the Orbiter aft flight deck. The Shuttle
Robotic Arm was comprised of six
joints that corresponded roughly to
the joints of a human arm and could
handle a payload weighing up to
29,000 kg (65,000 pounds). An end
effector was used to grapple a
payload or any other fixture and/or
component that had a grapple fixture
for handling by the arm.
Flight Deck
Flight deck showing the commander and pilot seats, along with cockpit controls.
Middeck
Crew compartment middeck configuration showing the forward middeck lockers in Avionics Bay 1 and 2, crew seats, and sleeping bags.
Payload Weight
accomplish a variety of missions, 46 The up-mass
including: the deployment of Earth Deploy scenarios are Discovery capability
downweight limited of the shuttle
observation and communication 20 44
below 388 kilometers decreased
satellites, interplanetary probes, and (210 nautical miles)
relative to the
42
scientific observatories; satellite orbital altitude.
retrieval and repair; assembly; crew 18 40
rotation; science and logistics resupply (x1,000)
Kilograms
(x1,000)
278 150
160
170
333 180
190
200
388 210
220
230
444 240
250
260
500 270
280
Nautical
Pounds
Miles
of both the Russian space station Mir Kilometers
The crew from the International Space Station captured this view of STS-97 (2000).
Memories of Wonder
partners to obtain maximum benefits microgravity. These boxes enabled study diffusion, and combustion
and results. The facilities included crew members to handle, transfer, and modules for conducting research on the
middeck glove boxes for conducting manipulate experiment hardware and single most important chemical process
research and testing science procedures material that were not approved for use in our everyday lives. The shuttle had
and for developing new technologies in in the shuttle. There were furnaces to freezers for sample return as well as the
The landing-to-
launch ground
operations “flow” at
Kennedy Space
Center prepared each
shuttle for its next
flight. This 4- to
5-month process
required thousands of
work hours and
millions of individual
processing steps.
After landing, the Orbiter is moved to the Orbiter
Space Shuttle Atlantis landing, STS-129 (2009). Processing Facility.
Inside the Orbiter Processing Facility, technicians process the Space Shuttle Main Engine and install it into the Orbiter.
Solid Rocket Boosters and the External Tank are delivered to Kennedy Space
Center and transported to the Vehicle Assembly Building to be readied for the Space Shuttle.
Inside the Vehicle Assembly Building, technicians complete the process of stacking the Solid Rocket Booster components.
After the External Tank is mated to the Solid Rocket Booster, the Orbiter is brought to the Vehicle Assembly Building.
The Orbiter is then mated with the External Tank and the Solid Rocket Booster.
Once the process is complete, the Space Shuttle is transported to the launch pad. Crawler moving the shuttle stack to the launch pad.
The Space Shuttle arrives at the launch pad, where payloads are installed into the Orbiter cargo bay. Payload Changeout Room at launch pad.
In the firing room at Kennedy Space Center, NASA clears the Space Shuttle for launch. STS-108 (2001) launch.
After launch, Solid Rocket Boosters separate from the Space Shuttle and are recovered in the Atlantic Ocean, close to Florida’s East Coast.
The recovered Solid Rocket Boosters are returned to Kennedy Space Center for refurbishment and reusability.
KSC developed an inexpensive, unique hail monitoring system using a piezoelectric device and sounding board to characterize rain and
hail. While the shuttle was at the pad, three remote devices constantly monitored the storms for potential damage to the vehicle.
The lightning launch commit criteria, accessible online archive. This data Lightning Protection and
as initially drafted, were very set is the largest, most comprehensive Instrumentation Systems
conservative as electrical properties of its kind.
Physical lightning protection for the
of clouds were not well understood.
The Airborne Field Mill science team shuttle on the pad was provided by a
Unfortunately, this increased the
developed a quantity called Volume combination of a large, loose network of
number of launches that had to be
Averaged Height Integrated Radar wiring known as a counterpoise beneath
postponed or scrubbed due to weather
Reflectivity that could be observed with the pad structure and surrounding
conditions. The program undertook a
weather radar. This quantity, when environs and a large wire system
series of field research initiatives to
small enough, assured safe electric comprising a 2.5-cm- (1-in.)-, 610-m-
learn more about cloud electrification
fields aloft. As a result, the Lightning (2,000-ft)-long steel cable anchored and
in hopes that the criteria could safely
Advisory Panel was able to recommend grounded at either end and supported
be made less restrictive.
changes to the lightning launch in the middle by a 24.4-m- (80-ft)-tall
These field research initiatives used commit criteria to make them both safer nonconductive mast. The mast also
aircraft instrumented with devices and less restrictive. The new criteria served to prevent currents—from
called electric field mills that could are used by all US Government launch lightning strikes to the wire—from
measure the strength of the electric facilities, and the Federal Aviation passing into the pad structure. A1.2-m
field in clouds as the aircraft flew Administration is including them in (4-ft) air terminal, or lightning rod,
through them. The research program its regulations governing the licensing was mounted atop the mast and
was known as Airborne Field Mill. of private spaceports. These criteria electrically connected to the steel cable.
Data collected by the Airborne were expressed in detailed rules that The cable arrangement assumed a
Field Mill program were subjected described weather conditions likely characteristic curved shape to either side
to extensive quality control, time- to produce or be associated with of the pad described mathematically
synchronized, and consolidated into lightning activity, the existence of as a catenary and therefore called the
a carefully documented, publicly which precluded launch. Catenary Wire System.
NASA defined the purpose of each mission several years before the
mission’s flight. Types of missions varied from satellite releases, classified
military payloads, science missions, and Hubble Space Telescope repair
and upgrades to construction of the ISS. In addition to completion of
the primary mission, all flights had secondary payloads such as
education, science, and engineering tests. Along with executing mission
objectives, astronauts managed Orbiter systems and fulfilled the usual
needs of life such as eating and sleeping. All of these activities were
integrated into each mission.
After suiting up, STS-124 crew members exited the Operations and Checkout Building to board the
Astrovan, which took them to Launch Pad 39A for the launch of Space Shuttle Discovery. On the right
(front to back): Astronauts Mark Kelly, Karen Nyberg, and Michael Fossum. On the left (front to back):
Astronauts Kenneth Ham, Ronald Garan, Akihiko Hoshide, and Gregory Chamitoff.
There were roughly two dozen T-38 Pensacola, Florida, to receive survival Launching the Shuttle
aircraft at any time, all of which were training from the US Navy. As with
maintained and flown out of Ellington any flight certification, currency Launch day was always exciting. KSC’s
Field in Houston, Texas. As part of requirements were expected to be firing room controlled the launch,
astronaut candidate training, they maintained. Semiannual total T-38 flying but JSC’s Mission Operations intently
received T-38 ground school, ejection time minimum for a pilot was 40 hours. watched all the vehicle systems.
seat training, and altitude chamber For a mission specialist, the minimum The Mission Control Center was filled
training. Mission specialists frequently flight time was 24 hours. Pilots were with activity as the flight controllers
did not have a military flying also required to meet approach and completed their launch checklists. For
background, so they were sent to landing minimum flight times. any shuttle mission, the weather was
the most common topic of discussion
During the STS-124 countdown, the area experienced some showers. By launch time,
however, the sea breeze had pushed the showers far enough away to eliminate any
concerns. The transatlantic abort landing weather proved a little more challenging, with Space Shuttle Discovery and its seven-member
STS-124 crew head toward low-Earth orbit and
two of the three landing sites forecasted to have weather violations. Fortunately, Moron Air a scheduled link-up with the International
Base, Spain, remained clear and became the chosen transatlantic abort landing site. Space Station.
The Mission Control Center front room houses the capsule communicator, flight director and deputy, and leads for all major systems such as avionics, life
support, communication systems, guidance and navigation, extravehicular activity lead and robotic arm, propulsion and other expendables, flight surgeon,
and public affairs officer. These views show the extensive support and consoles. Left photo: At the front of the operations center are three screens.
The clocks on the left include Greenwich time, mission elapsed time, and current shuttle commands. A map of the world with the shuttle position-current
orbit is in the center. The right screen shows shuttle attitude. Center photo: Flight Director Norman Knight (right) speaks with one of the leads at the
support console. Right photo: Each console in the operations center has data related to the lead’s position; e.g., the life support position would have the
data related to Orbiter air, water, and temperature readings and the support hardware functions.
Extravehicular
Activities
International
Space Station
Tracking and
Data Relay
Hubble Space
Satellite System
Telescope and other
Orbiter payloads
Orbiter
White Sands
Goddard Test Facility
Space Flight Center
Johnson Space
Center Mission
Control Center
Marshall Space Flight Center
Just before shuttle liftoff, activity in the personnel in the Mission Control Center Debris Impact on the Orbiter
Mission Control Center slowed and the remained intensely focused. Major
Debris from launch and on orbit could
members of the flight control team events were called out during the ascent.
make the Orbiter unable to land. The
became intently focused on their At almost 8½ minutes, when target
Orbiter could also require on-orbit repair.
computer screens. From liftoff, the velocity was achieved, main engine
performance of the main engines, SRBs, cutoff was commanded by the on-board
Ascent Inspection
and ET were closely observed with the computers and flight controllers
team ready to respond if anything continued verifying system After the Columbia accident (2003),
performed off-nominally. If, for performance. Every successful launch the shuttle was closely observed during
example, a propulsion failure occurred, was an amazing accomplishment. the shuttle launch and for the duration
the flight control team would identify a of the ascent phase by a combination of
Before and after a shuttle launch, KSC
potential solution that may or may not ground and vehicle-mounted cameras,
personnel performed walkdowns of the
require the immediate return of the ground Radio Detection and Ranging,
launch pad for a visual inspection of
Orbiter to the ground. If the latter were and the Wing Leading Edge Impact
any potential debris sources. Shuttle
necessary, an abort mode (i.e., return to Detection System. The ground cameras
liftoff was a dynamic event that could
launch site, transatlantic abort landing) were located on the fixed service
cause ice/frost or a loose piece of
and a landing site would be selected. structure, the mobile launch platform,
hardware to break free and impact the
The electrical systems and the crew around the perimeter of the launch
Orbiter. Finding these debris sources
environment also had to function pad, and on short-, medium-, and
and preventing potential damage was
correctly while the Orbiter was guided long-range trackers located along the
important to the safety of the mission.
into orbit. For the entire climb to orbit, Florida coast. The ground cameras
Returning Home
If necessary, a flight could be extended
to accommodate extra activities and
weather delays. The mission
management team decided on flight
extensions for additional activities
where consideration was given for
Space Shuttle Discovery’s drag chute is deployed as the spacecraft rolls toward a stop on
impacts to consumables, station runway 15 of the Shuttle Landing Facility at Kennedy Space Center, concluding the 14-day
activities, schedule, etc. Landing was STS-124 mission to the International Space Station.
typically allotted 2 days with multiple
opportunities to land. NASA’s After nearly 9 days at the space station, the crew of STS-124 undocked and said
preference was always to land at KSC farewell to Gregory Chamitoff, who would be staying on as the flight engineer for the
since the vehicle could be processed at
Expedition crew, and the two other crew members. When watching the goodbyes on
that facility; however, weather would
video, it appeared as if the crew said goodbye, closed the hatch, and dashed away from
sometimes push the landing to Dryden
Flight Research Center/Edwards Air the station. “It’s more complicated than that,” Commander Mark Kelly explained. “You
Force Base. If the latter occurred, the actually spend some time sitting on the Orbiter side of the hatch.” About 1 hour passed
Orbiter was flown back on a modified before the undocking proceeded. Afterward, the crew flew around the station and then
Boeing 747 in what was referred to as completed a full inspection of the wing’s leading edge and nose cap with the boom.
a “ferry flight.”
The crew began stowing items like the Ku-band antenna in preparation for landing on
Once the Orbiter landed and rolled to June 15. On the day of landing, the crew suited up and reconfigured the Orbiter from a
a stop, the Mission Control Center
spaceship to an airplane. The re-entry flight director and his team worked with the crew
turned control back to KSC. After
to safely land the Orbiter, and continually monitored weather conditions at the three
landing, personnel inspected the
Orbiter for any variations in Thermal landing sites. With no inclement weather at Kennedy Space Center, the crew of STS-124
Protection System and reinforced was “go” for landing. The payload bay doors were closed several minutes before deorbit
carbon-carbon integrity. More imagery burn. The crew then performed checklist functions such as computer configuration,
was taken for comparison to on-orbit auxiliary power unit start, etc. Sixty minutes before touchdown the deorbit burn was
imagery. Once the Orbiter was at the performed. After the Columbia accident, the re-entry profiles for the Orbiter changed so
Orbiter Processing Facility, its that the crew came across the Gulf of Mexico, rather than the United States. As the
cameras were removed for additional
Orbiter descended, the sky turned from pitch black to red and orange. Discovery hit the
imagery analysis and the repairs began
atmosphere at Mach 25 and a large fireball surrounded the glider. It rapidly flew over
in preparation for another flight.
Mexico. By the time it passed over Orlando, Florida, the Orbiter slowed. As they
approached the runway, Kelly pulled the nose up and lowered the landing gear. On
touchdown—after main gear touchdown but before nose gear touchdown—he deployed
a parachute, which helped slow the shuttle as it came to a complete stop.
The Space Shuttle Program matured the EVA capability with advances in
operational techniques, suit and tool versatility and function, training
techniques and venues, and physiological protocols to protect astronauts
while providing better operational efficiency. Many of these advances
were due to the sheer number of EVAs performed. Prior to the start
of the program, 38 EVAs had been performed by all prior US spaceflights
combined. The shuttle astronauts accomplished 157 EVAs.
This was the primary advancement in EVA during the shuttle era—
an expansion of capability to include much more complicated and difficult
tasks, with a much more diverse Astronaut Corps, done on a much more
frequent basis. This will greatly benefit space programs in the future as they
can rely on a more robust EVA capability than was previously possible.
was that designers didn’t have to worry Chest Circumference 82.3 (32.4) 109.7 (43.2) 27.4 (10.8)
as much about the mass of the suit. Shoulder Circumference 95.5 (36.7) 128.5 (50.6) 35.3 (13.9)
Shoulder Breadth 38.6 (15.2) 46.7 (18.4) 8.1 (3.2)
Improving mobility was also a design
goal for the shuttle extravehicular Shoulder Height 122.9 (48.4) 156.7 (61.7) 33.8 (13.3)
mobility unit (i.e., EVA suit). Designers Fingertip Span 152.4 (60.0) 195.6 (77.0) 43.2 (17.0)
added features to make it more flexible Torso Length 56.1 (22.1) 70.4 (27.7) 14.2 (5.6)
and allow the crew member greater Hip Breadth 31.5 (12.4) 38.9 (15.3) 7.4 (2.9)
range of motion than with previous
Crotch Height 60.1 (26.8) 93.5 (36.8) 25.4 (10.0)
suits. Bearings were included in the
Knee Height 38.1 (15.0) 54.1 (21.3) 16.0 (6.3)
shoulder, upper arm, and waist areas to
provide a useful range of mobility.
The incorporation of the waist bearing
enabled the EVA crew member to rotate. modular design, thereby allowing like driving bolts and operating latches
various pieces of different sizes while wearing an ill-fitting glove.
Shuttle managers decided that, due to to achieve a reasonably good fit. Laser-scanning technology was used
the duration of the program, the suit The design also incorporated a to provide a precise fit for glove
should also be reusable and able to fit custom-tailoring capability using manufacture patterns. Eventually,
many different crew members. Women inserts, which allowed a reasonably it became too expensive to maintain
were included as EVA crew members good fit with minimal modifications. a fully customized glove program.
for the first time, necessitating unique Engineers were able to develop a set
accommodations and expanding the size While the final design didn’t
of standard sizes with adjustments at
range required. The range had to cover accommodate the entire size range
critical joints to allow good dexterity
from the 5% American Female to the of the Astronaut Corps, it was flexible
at a much lower cost. In contrast, a
95% American Male with variations in enough to allow for a wide variety of
single helmet size was deemed
shoulders, waist, arms, and legs. crew members to perform spacewalks,
sufficient to fit the entire population
especially those crew members who had
A modular “tuxedo” approach was used without compromising a crew
the best physical attributes for work on
to address the multi-fit requirement. member’s ability to perform tasks.
the International Space Station (ISS).
Tuxedos use several different pieces, The responsibility for meeting the
which can be mixed and matched to One notable exception to this modular
reuse requirement was borne primarily
best fit an individual—one size of approach was the spacesuit gloves.
by the Primary Life Support System, or
pants can be paired with a different Imagine trying to assemble a bicycle
“backpack,” which included equipment
size shirt, cummerbund, and shoes to while wearing ski gloves that are too
within the suit garment to control
fit the individual. The EVA suit used a large and are inflated like a balloon.
various life functions. The challenge
This is similar to attempting EVA tasks
Astronaut Bruce McCandless on STS 41B (1984) in the nitrogen-propelled manned maneuvering unit,
completing an extravehicular activity. McCandless is floating without tethers attaching him to the shuttle.
Hubble Repair
As NASA had proven the ability to
execute EVAs and accomplish some Astronauts Rick Hieb on the starboard payload bay mounted foot restraint work station,
remarkable tasks, demand for the Bruce Melnick with his back to the camera, and Tom Akers on the robotic arm mounted foot
EVA resource increased sharply on restraint work station—on the backside of the Intelsat during STS-49 (1992).
the agency. One of the most dramatic
and demanding EVA flights began STS-49 significantly impacted planning for future EVAs. It was the most aggressive
development shortly after the EVA flight planned, up to that point, with three EVAs scheduled. Engineers designed
deployment of Hubble in April 1990. a bar with a grapple fixture to capture Intelsat and berth it in the payload bay.
NASA’s reputation was in jeopardy
The data available on the satellite proved inadequate and it was modeled incorrectly
from the highly publicized Hubble
failure, and the scientific community for ground simulations. After two EVA attempts to attach the capture bar, flight
was sorely disappointed with the controllers looked at other options.
capability of the telescope. Hubble was
designed with several servicing missions The result was an unprecedented three-man EVA using space hardware to build
planned, but the first mission—to a platform for the crew members, allowing them to position themselves in a triangle
restore its optics to the expected formation to capture the Intelsat by hand. This required an intense effort by ground
performance—took on greater
controllers to verify that the airlock could fit three crew members, since it was
significance. EVA was the focal point
in recovery efforts. The mission took only designed for two, and that there were sufficient resources to service all three.
nearly 3 years to plan, train, and develop Additional analyses looked at whether there were sufficient handholds to grasp
the necessary replacement parts. the satellite, that satellite temperatures would not exceed the glove temperature limits,
The Hubble repair effort required and that structural margins were sufficient. Practice runs on the ground convinced
significant effort from most resources ground operators that the operation was possible. The result was a successful capture
in the EVA community. Designers from and repair during the longest EVA in the shuttle era.
Goddard Space Flight Center, Johnson
Space Center, Marshall Space Flight
lating Portable
Articulating Worksite
W o
orksite
e
Foot Restraint (APFR) Interface Body
Crew Positioning/ APFR Attach Site Tether
Restraint Tether
aint Device
Restraint Local Crew Restraint
Crew
Modular Mini
Workstation
Workstation
Tool Belt for Carrying
Tool
Tools
and Stowing Tools
ety Tether
Safety Tether
Prima
ary Life Line
Primary
Simplified Aid For EVAA Rescue
Jet Pack for Emergen
gency Rescue if Cr
Emergency ew
Crew
Inadvertently
advertently Released
Tool
Pistol Grip Tool
Power ed,
Powered,
Computer--monitor
Computer-monitored
Tool
Drive Tool
Astronaut Rick Mastracchio, STS-118 (2007), is shown using several extravehicular activity (EVA) tools while working on construction and maintenance
of the International Space Station during the shuttle mission’s third planned EVA activity.
One solution was to lower shuttle cabin pressure from its nominal pressure of 101.2 kPa
Extravehicular Loads for (14.7 psi) to 70.3 kPa (10.2 psi) for at least 12 hours prior to the EVA. This reduced
Structural Requirements cabin pressure protocol was efficient and effective, with only 40 minutes prebreathe.
The EVA loads development program,
Shuttle EVA crew members working International Space Station (ISS) construction
first started for the Hubble servicing
required a different approach. It is impossible to reduce large volume ISS pressure to
missions, helped define the ISS
structural design requirements. ISS was 70.3 kPa (10.2 psi). To increase the rate of nitrogen release from tissues, crew
the first program to have extensive members exercised before EVA while breathing 100% oxygen. This worked, but it
EVA performed on a range of structural added extra time to the packed EVA day and exhausted the crew. Planners used the
interfaces. The load cases for Hubble reduced cabin pressure protocol by isolating EVA crew members in the ISS airlock
repair had to protect the telescope
the night before the EVA and lowering the pressure to 70.3 kPa (10.2 psi). This worked
for a short period of EVA operations
well for the remainder of ISS EVAs, with no cases of decompression sickness
and for a finite number of well-known
EVA tasks. throughout the Space Shuttle Program.
20
April 1991: First EVA After Challenger December 2000: First ISS Unscheduled
19 Accident, Compton Gamma Ray Observatory EVA, Solar Array Repair (STS-97)
April 1983: First Shuttle EVA (STS-6)
18 Unscheduled EVA (STS-37)
October 2007: First EVA
Number of Space Shuttle Program Extravehicular Activities
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
= Shuttle Stand-alone EVAs EVA = Extravehicular Activity
EVA Totals Per Program
Gemini — 9 Skylab — 10 = Shuttle EVAs while at ISS ISS = International Space Station
Summary a significant part of almost every as well as how an EVA crew member
shuttle mission, with an increasing affected his or her environment.
The legacy of EVA during the Space list of tasks that EVA crew members This tremendous expansion in EVA
Shuttle Program consists of both the were able to perform. EVA tools and capability will substantially benefit
actual work that was done and the support equipment provided more the future exploration of the solar
dramatic expansion of the EVA capability than ever before, with system as engineers design vehicles
capability. EVA was used to successfully battery-powered and computer- and missions knowing that EVA crew
repair or restore significant national controlled tools being well understood members are able to do much more
resources to their full capacity, such and highly reliable. than they could at the beginning of the
as Hubble, communications satellites, Space Shuttle Program.
and the Orbiter, and to construct the Much was learned about what an
ISS. EVA advanced from being a minor EVA crew member needs to survive
capability used sparingly to becoming and work in a harsh environment
As a parent and child grow, so too did the relationship between the
shuttle and the ISS as the fledgling station grew out of its total
dependence on the shuttle to its role as a port of call. The ISS soon
became the dominant destination in the heavens, hosting vehicles
launched from many spaceports in four continents below, including
shuttles from the Florida coast.
Discovery (STS-96) brought US-built Unity Discovery (STS-92) delivered Z1 truss and Endeavour (STS-97) delivered new
node, which attached to Russian-built Zarya. antenna (top) and one of the mating adapters. solar array panels.
1999 2000
Atlantis (STS-98) brought Destiny laboratory. Endeavour (STS-100) delivered and attached Atlantis (STS-104) delivered Quest airlock.
Space Station Robotic Arm.
2001
Atlantis (STS-110) delivered S0 truss. Atlantis (STS-112) brought S1 truss. Endeavour (STS-113) delivered P1 truss.
2002
Atlantis (STS-115) brought P3/P4 truss. Discovery (STS-116) delivered P5 truss. Atlantis (STS-117) delivered S3/S4 truss and
another pair of solar arrays.
2006 2007
Endeavour (STS-118) delivered the Discovery (STS-120) brought Harmony Atlantis (STS-122) delivered European Space
S5 truss segment. Node 2 module. Agency’s Columbus laboratory.
2007 2008
Further Improvements of miles by the shuttle’s star tracker so seeking vastly dimmer points of light.
Facilitate Collaboration that rendezvous could be conducted. Thus, the shuttle’s final rendezvous
The ISS was so huge that in sunlight it with the ISS involved taking a relative
Between Shuttle and Station
would saturate the star trackers of the navigational “fix” on the ISS at night,
The ISS needed a tiny light source that shuttle, which were accustomed to when the ISS’s small light bulb
could be seen at a distance of hundreds approximated the light from a star.
Endeavour (STS-123) brought Kibo Japanese Endeavour (STS-123) also delivered Canadian- Discovery (STS-124) brought Pressurized
Experiment Module. built Special Purpose Dextrous Manipulator. Module and robotic arm of Kibo Japanese
Experiment Module.
2 0 0 8 continued
Discovery (STS-119) brought Endeavour (STS-127) delivered Kibo Japanese Endeavour (STS-130) delivered Node 3
S6 truss segment. Experiment Module Exposed Facility and with Cupola.
Experiment Logistics Module Exposed Section.
2009 2010
Payload
down-mass capability was unique, 17,200
FORECAST
38,000
hotly pursued, and the crown jewel
at the negotiation table. As it became 16,300
36,000
clear that more and more partners
15,400
would have the capability to deliver 34,000
88
96
101
106
92
97
98
102
100
104
105
108
110
111
112
113
114
121
115
116
117
118
120
122
123
124
119
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
cargo to the ISS but only NASA STS Mission
retained any significant ability to
return cargo intact to Earth, the cachet
cargo to ride up with the shuttle on assembly—much of it “hands on”—
only increased. Even the Russian
every launch in place of such canisters. in the harsh environment of space.
partner—with its own robust resupply
The shuttle would even carry precious Spacewalking crews assembled the
capabilities and long, proud history
ice cream and frozen treats for the ISS ISS in well over 100 extravehicular
in human spaceflight—was seduced
crews in freezers needed for the return activity (EVA) sessions, usually lasting
by the lure of recoverable down mass
of frozen medical samples. 5 hours or more. EVA is tiring, time
and agreed that its value was twice
consuming, and more dangerous than
that of 1 kg (2.2 pounds) of upmass. The shuttle would periodically reboost
routine cabin flight. It is also
NASA negotiators had a particular the ISS, as needed, using any leftover
exhilarating to all involved. Despite
fondness for this one capability that propellant that had not been required for
the dangers of EVA, the main role for
the Russians seemed to value higher contingencies. The shuttle introduced air
shuttle in the last decade of flight was
than their own capabilities. into the cabin and transferred
to assemble the ISS. Therefore, EVAs
compressed oxygen and nitrogen to the
came to dominate the shuttle’s activities
ISS tanks as its unused reserves allowed.
Symbiotic Relationship during most station visits.
ISS crews even encouraged shuttle
Between Shuttle and the crews to use their toilet so that the These shuttle crew members were
International Space Station precious water could be later recaptured trained extensively for their respective
from the wastes for oxygen generation. missions. NASA scripted the shuttle
Over time the two programs developed
flights to achieve ambitious assembly
several symbiotic logistic relationships. The ISS kept stockpiles of food, water,
objectives, sometimes requiring four
The ISS was eager to take the and essential consumables that were
EVAs in rapid succession. The level of
pure-water by-product of the shuttle’s collectively sufficient to keep a guest
proficiency required for such long,
fuel cell power generators because crew of seven aboard for an additional
complicated tasks was not in keeping
water is the heaviest and most vital 30 days—long enough for a rescue
with the ISS training template.
consumable of the life support system. shuttle to be prepared and launched to
Therefore, the shuttle crews handled
The invention of the Station to Shuttle the ISS in the event a shuttle already at
most of the burden. They trained until
Power Transfer System allowed the the station could not safely reenter the
mere days before launch for the
shuttle to draw power from the ISS Earth’s atmosphere.
marathon sessions that began shortly
solar arrays, thereby conserving its own
after docking.
oxygen and hydrogen supplies and
extending its stay in orbit. Extravehicular Activity by
Space Shuttle Crews Shuttle Airlock
The ISS maintained the shared
Even with all of the automated and Between assembly flights STS-97
contingency supply of lithium hydroxide
robotic assembly, a large and complex (2000) and STS-104 (2001)—the first
canisters for carbon dioxide scrubbing
vehicle such as the ISS requires an time a crew was already aboard the ISS
by both programs, allowing more
enormous amount of manual to host a shuttle and the flight when
Left photo: Astronauts John Olivas (top) and Christer Fuglesang pose for a photo in the STS-128 (2009) Space Shuttle airlock.
Right photo: Astronauts Garrett Reisman (left) and Michael Good—STS-132 (2010)—pose for a photo between two extravehicular mobility units in the
International Space Station (ISS) Quest airlock. By comparison, the Quest airlock is much larger and thus allows enough space for the prebreathe needed
to prevent decompression sickness to occur in the airlock, isolated from the ISS.
Whenever NASA scrubbed a launch says that they can dock. Two days Such standards included detailed
attempt for even 1 day, the scrub before they are to get here, they tell us specifications for launch loads
disrupted the near-term plan on board that they’re not coming on that day. capability, electrical grounding and
the ISS. Imagine the shuttle point of For the next week or so of attempts, power quality, radio wave emission
view in such a scrub scenario: “We’ll they will be able to tell us only at the and susceptibility limits, materials
try again tomorrow and still run exactly moment of launch that they will in fact outgassing limits, flammability limits,
the script we know.” be arriving 2 days later.” toxicity, mold resistance, surface
temperature limits, and tens of
Now imagine the ISS point of view in At that juncture, did ISS crew members thousands of other shuttle standards.
the same scenario: “We’ve been sleep shift? Did they shut down the The Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle
planning to take 12 days off from our payloads and rewire for the shuttle’s and European Space Agency’s (ESA’s)
routine to host seven visitors at our arrival? Did they try to cram in one Automated Transfer Vehicle were
home. These visitors are coming to more day of experiments while they not expected until nearly a decade
rehab our place with a major new waited? Did they pack anything at all? after shuttle began assembly of the
home addition. We need to wrap up This was the type of dilemma that ISS. Neither could carry crews, so all
any routine life we’ve established and crews and planners faced leading astronauts, cargoes, supplies, and
conclude our special projects and up to every launch. Therefore, a few structures had to play by shuttle’s rules.
then rearrange our storage to let these weeks before each launch, ISS
seven folks move back and forth, start planners polled the technical teams Then the Earth Moved
packing things for the visitors to take for the tasks that could be put on the
with them, and reconfigure our wiring “slip schedule,” such as small tasks The Russians and Americans started
and plumbing to be ready for them to or day-long procedures that could working together with a series of
do their work. Then we must sleep be slotted into the plan on very short shuttle visits to the Russian space
shift to be ready for them at the strange notice. Some of these tasks were station Mir. There was more at stake
hour of the day that orbital mechanics complex, like tearing down a piece than technical standards. Leadership
Just as the International Space Station (ISS) international agreements called for each Communicating With Multiple Alphabets
partner to meet its obligations to share in common operations costs such as propellant The space programs needed something
delivery and reboost, the agreements also required each partner to bear the cost of robust to handle multiple alphabets,
delivering its contributions and payloads to orbit and encouraged use of barter. As a and they needed it soon. In other words,
result, the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency the programs needed more bytes for
(JAXA) took on the obligation to build some of the modules within NASA’s contribution every character. Thus, the programs
as payment in kind for the launch of their laboratories. In shifting the cost of became early adopters of the system
that several Asian nations had been
development and spares for these modules to the international partners—and without
forced to adopt as a national standard
taking on any additional financial obligation for the launch of the partner labs—NASA
to capture the 6,000+ characters of
was able to provide much-needed fiscal relief to its capped “build-to-cost” kanji—pictograms of Chinese origin
development budget in the post-redesign years. The Columbus laboratory took a used in modern Japanese writing.
dedicated shuttle flight to launch. In return, ESA built Nodes 2 and 3 and some The Universal Multiple-Octet Coded
research equipment. The Japanese Experiment Module that included Kibo would take Character Set—known in one
2.3 shuttle flights to place in orbit. JAXA paid this bill by building the Centrifuge ubiquitous word processing
Accommodation Module (later deleted from the program by NASA after the Vision for environment as “Unicode” and
standardized worldwide as International
Space Exploration refocused research priorities on the ISS) and by providing other
Standards Organization (ISO) Standard
payload equipment and a non-ISS launch.
10646—allowed all character sets of
Training
The continuous nature of space station
operations led to significant
philosophical changes in NASA’s Posing in Node 2 during STS-127 (2009)/Expedition 20 Joint Operations: Front row (left to right):
training and operations. A major facet Expedition 20 Flight Engineer Robert Thirsk (Canadian Space Agency); STS-127 Commander Mark
of the training adjustment had to do Polansky; Expedition 19/20 Commander Gennady Padalka (Cosmonaut); and STS-127 Mission
with the emotional nature of Specialist David Wolf. Second row (left to right): Astronaut Koichi Wakata (Japanese Aerospace
Exploration Agency); Expedition 19/20 Flight Engineer Michael Barratt; STS-127 Mission Specialist
long-duration activities. Short-duration
Julie Payette (Canadian Space Agency); STS-127 Pilot Douglas Hurley; and STS-127 Mission Specialist
shuttle missions could draw on Thomas Marshburn. Back row (left to right): Expedition 20/21 Flight Engineer Roman Romanenko
the astronauts’ emotional “surge” (Cosmonaut); STS-127 Mission Specialist Christopher Cassidy; Expedition 20 Flight Engineer Timothy
Kopra; and Expedition 20 Flight Engineer Frank De Winne (European Space Agency).
Reflections on
the International Space Station
“Of all the missions that have been accomplished by the Space
Shuttle, the assembly of the International Space Station (ISS)
Robert Cabana (left), mission commander, and Sergei Krikalev,
certainly has to rank as one of the most challenging and
Russian Space Agency mission specialist, helped install equipment
successful. Without the Space Shuttle, the ISS would not be aboard the Russian-built Zarya module and the US-built Unity module.
what it is today. It is truly a phenomenal accomplishment,
especially considering the engineering challenge of assembling “We worked and talked late into the night about what this
hardware from all parts of the world, on orbit, for the first time small cornerstone would become and what it meant for
and having it work. Additionally, the success is truly amazing international cooperation and the future of exploration
when one factors in the complexity of the cultural differences beyond our home planet. I made the first entry into the
between the European Space Agency and all its partners, log of the ISS that night, and the whole crew signed it the
Canada, Japan, Russia, and the United States. next day. It is an evening I’ll never forget.
Summary the steam engine, the printing press, shuttle and station grew to where the
and fire. The shuttle carried the new generation took up the journey
When humans learn how to manipulate modules of this engine of invention, while the accomplished veteran eased
any force of nature, it is called assembled them in orbit, provided toward retirement.
“technology,” and technology is the supplies and crews to maintain it, and
fabric of the modern world and its The shuttle’s true legacy does not live
even built the original experience base
economy. One such force—gravity— in museums. As visitors to these
that allowed it to be designed.
is now known to affect physics, astounding birds marvel up close at
chemistry, and biology more Over the 12 years of coexistence, these engineering masterpieces, they
profoundly than the forces that have and even further back in the days need only glance skyward to see the
previously changed humanity, such as when the old Freedom design was ongoing testament to just a portion of
fire, wind, electricity, and biochemistry. first on the drawing board, the the shuttles’ achievements. In many
Humankind’s achievement of an International Space Station (ISS) twilight moments, the shuttle’s greatest
international, permanent platform in and Space Shuttle teams learned a lot single payload and partner—the
space will accelerate the creation of from each other, and both teams and stadium-sized ISS—flies by for all to
new technologies for the cooperating both vehicles grew stronger as a see in a dazzling display that is brighter
nations that may be as influential as result. Like a parent and child, the than any planet.
Engineering
Innovations Thermal Protection Systems
Aerodynamics and
Flight Dynamics
Software
Structural Design
“I had the privilege of being the pilot on the maiden flight of the Orbiter Design Challenges
Discovery, a hugely successful mission. We deployed three large communications Emphasis on fatigue capability,
satellites and tested the dynamic response characteristics of an extendable strength, ease of assembly and
solar array wing, which was a precursor to the much-larger solar array wings
disassembly, maintainability, and
materials compatibility were all major
on the International Space Station.
considerations in achieving a fully
“But the first launch attempt did not go quite as we expected. Our pulses were
reusable design.
racing as the three main engines sequentially began to roar to life, but as we Specialized materials needed to be
rocked forward on the launch pad it suddenly got deathly quiet and all motion incorporated into the design to meet the
severe operating environments. NASA
stopped abruptly. With the seagulls screaming in protest outside our windows,
successfully adapted advanced alloys,
it dawned on us we weren’t going into space that day. The first comment including cast titanium, Inconel® 718
came from Mission Specialist Steve Hawley, who broke the stunned silence (a high-strength, nickel-based superalloy
by calmly saying ‘I thought we’d be a lot higher at MECO (main engine cutoff).’ used in the main combustion chamber
So we soon started cracking lousy jokes while waiting for the ground crew support jacket and powerhead), and
NARloy-Z (a high-conductivity,
to return to the pad and open the hatch. The joking was short-lived when
copper-based alloy used as the liner in
we realized there was a residual fire coming up the left side of the Orbiter, fed
the main combustion chamber). NASA
from the same balky hydrogen valve that had caused the abort. The Launch also oversaw the development of
Control Center team was quick to identify the problem and initiated the water single-crystal turbine blades for the
deluge system designed for just such a contingency. We had to exit the pad high-pressure turbopumps. This
elevator through a virtual wall of water. We wore thin, blue cotton flight suits innovation essentially eliminated the
grain boundary separation failure
back then and were soaked to the bone as we entered the air-conditioned
mechanism (blade cracking) that had
astronaut van for the ride back to crew quarters. Our drenched crew shivered limited the service life of the pumps.
and huddled together as we watched the Discovery recede through the rear Nonmetallic materials such as Kel-F®
window of the van, and as Mike Mullane wryly observed, ‘This isn’t exactly (a plastic used in turbopump seals),
what I expected spaceflight to be like.’ The entire crew, including Commander Armalon® fabric (turbopump bearing
cage material), and P5N carbon-graphite
Henry Hartsfield, the other Mission Specialists Mike Mullane and Judy Resnik,
seal material were also incorporated
and Payload Specialist Charlie Walker, contributed to an easy camaraderie that into the design.
made the long hours of training for the mission truly enjoyable.”
Material sensitivity to oxygen
environment was a major concern for
compatibility due to reaction and
Fuel Oxidizer
Preburner
Preburner Preburner
Preburner
The Block II engine combined a new high-pressure fuel turbopump with the previously flown redesigned high-pressure oxygen turbopump.
DRAFT 8/20/09
Risk analysis showed that the Block II engine was twice as safe as the 1990s-era engine. Beginning with STS-110 in April 2002, all shuttle
flights were powered by the improved Space Shuttle Main Engine.
and incorporation of a stiff single-piece projected that the Block II engine was the system further improved engine
disk/shaft, thin-cast turbine blades, twice as safe as the Phase II engine. ascent safety by an additional 23%.
and a cast pump inlet that improved the
The first two single-engine flights of
suction performance and robustness
Block II occurred on STS-104 and Summary
against pressure surges. As with the
STS-108 in July 2001 and December
high-pressure oxidizer turbopump, Another major SSME milestone took
2001, respectively, followed by the first
the high-pressure fuel turbopump place in 2004 when the main engine
three-engine cluster flight on STS-110
turbine inlet did not require off-engine passed 1,000,000 seconds in test and
in April 2002. The high-pressure fuel
inspections, which contributed operating time. This unprecedented
turbopump had accumulated 150,843
significantly to improving engine level of engine maturity over the
seconds of engine test maturity at the
turnaround time. The high-pressure preceding 3 decades established the
time of the first flight.
fuel turbopump also demonstrated main engine as one of the world’s
that a turbine blade failure would result The Block II engine also incorporated most reliable rocket engines, with a
in a contained, safe engine shutdown. the advanced health management 100% flight safety record and a
By introducing the added operational system on STS-117 in 2007. This demonstrated reliability exceeding
margin of the large-throat main on-board system could detect and 0.9996 in over 1,000,000 seconds of
combustion chamber with the new mitigate anomalous high-pressure hot-fire experience.
turbopumps, quantitative risk analysis turbopump vibration behavior, and
Propellant
The nozzle structure consisted of
metal housings over which were bonded
layers of carbon/phenolic and
Nozzle silica/phenolic materials that protected
Cork
Insulation
Temperature
Sensor (added)
Thermal Barrier Leak Check Port
Heater and Heat Relocated and Modified
Transfer Cement
(added) V-2 Filler (added)
Leak
Check Fluorocarbon
Kevlar® Retainer Strap Interference Fit (added)
Port Primary O-ring
Vent Port in Front of
Zinc Primary O-ring (added) Capture Feature
Grease
Chromate O-ring (added)
Bead
Putty Custom Shims
(added) Capture Feature (added)
Shim
Resin Technology 455
J-joint
Pressurization
Cork Slot (added)
Fluorocarbon Insulation
Secondary Larger Pressure-sensitive
O-ring Longer Pins Grooves Adhesive (added)
and New and O-ring
Retention Size Nonvented Joint
Filled Insulation (added)
Insulation Band (added)
Cork
Insulation Gap
Resin
Technology
455
bondlines, ablatives, fasteners, and data were fed into a system-wide The postflight analysis program
virtually all remaining flight hardware. database containing documentation collected the actual flight performance
Engineers promptly evaluated any dating back to the program’s inception. data—most of which would not have
significant observations that could The wealth of information available been available if the motors had not
affect the orbiting vehicle or the next for performance trend analysis was been recovered.
motor launch sets. unmatched by any other solid rocket
Through this tightly defined process,
motor manufacturing process in the
Before the motor was returned to the engineers were able to address the
world. Gates and checks within the
flight inventory, the recovered metal subtle effects that are often a result of an
system ensured the full investigation
parts were inspected for corrosion, unintended drift in the manufacturing
of any anomalies to pinpoint root
deformations, cracks, and other potential process or new manufacturing materials
cause and initiate corrective action.
damage. Dimensional measurement introduced into the process. The
Additional Challenges
Stable combustion was a concern for
cool and therefore less subject to failure eliminated mechanical manufacturing
NASA. In fact, stable combustion has
from either burnout or thermal cycling. errors and increased injector life and
always been the most expensive
combustion efficiency.
schedule-constraining development To accomplish precise injector
issue in rocket development. For the fabrication, engineers implemented The combustion chamber was
Orbital Maneuvering System engine, platelet configuration. The fuel and regenerative-cooled by fuel flowing
engineers investigated injector pattern oxidizer flowed through the injector in a single pass through non-tubular
designs combined with acoustic cavity and impinged on each other, causing coolant channels. The chamber was
concepts. In propulsion applications mixing and combustion. Platelet composed of a stainless-steel liner, an
with requirements for long-duration technology, consisting of a series of electroformed nickel shell, and an aft
firings and reusability, cavities had an thin plates manufactured by photo flange and fuel inlet manifold assembly.
advantage because they were easy to etching and diffusion bonded together, Its structural design was based on life
Oxidizer
Tank
tested, and prepared all hypergolic requirement of a fail-operational/fail- propellant tank acquisition system
wetted components for reinstallation safe design introduced complexity of design because of changes in the
on the vehicles. additional hardware and a complex gravitational environment.
critical redundancy management system.
The reuse requirement posed problems NASA Makes Effective Selections
Reaction Control System in material selection and compatibility,
As with the Orbital Maneuvering
The Reaction Control System provided ground handling and turnaround
System, propellant selection was
propulsive forces to control the motion procedures, and classical wear-out
important for the Reaction Control
of the Orbiter for attitude control, problems. The requirement for both
System. NASA chose a bipropellant of
rotational maneuvers, and small velocity on-orbit operations and re-entry into
monomethylhydrazine and nitrogen
changes along the Orbiter axes. The Earth’s atmosphere complicated
Bearing Housing
Drive Spur
Lube Sleeve Gear
Straight Pin
Bolt
Ball Bearing
Turbine Blade
Catalyst
O-ring Grooves
Injector Stem
Hot Gas
Liquid
Out To
Hydrazine
Turbine
In
Wheel
STS-9 Cracked
Injector Stem
Flow
Nitrogen
Nitrogen and
oxygen molecules
are dissociated in
are
the shock layer.
layerr..
Atoms re
oms may recombine
ecombine
and form molecules
on the vehicle surface.
Boundary
Layer
Shock
Layer
Reinforced
Carbon-Carbon
Coating
High-temperature
Reusable Surface
Insulation Tile
Low-temperature
Reusable Surface
Insulation Tile
Advanced Flexible
Reusable Surface
Insulation Blanket
Flexible Reusable
Surface Insulation
Blanket
Filler Bar
Koropon®-primed
Structure Room-temperature
Vulcanizing Adhesive
Strain Isolation Pad
transfer. Selection was based on the reusable surface insulation. Surface Fibrous Refractory Composite
temperature on the vehicle. In areas coating constituted the primary Insulation tiles helped reduce the
in which temperatures fell below difference between these two categories. overall weight and later replaced the
approximately 1,260°C (2,300°F), High-temperature reusable surface LI-2200 tiles used around door
NASA used rigid silica tiles or fibrous insulation tiles used a black borosilicate penetrations. Alumnia Enhanced
insulation. At temperatures above glass coating that had an emittance Thermal Barrier was used in areas in
that point, the agency used reinforced value greater than 0.8 and covered areas which small particles would
carbon-carbon. of the vehicle in which temperatures damage fragile tiles. As part of the
reached up to 1,260°C (2,300°F). post-Columbia Return to Flight
Tiles Low-temperature reusable surface effort, engineers developed Boeing
insulation tiles contained a white Rigidized Insulation. Overall, the
The background to the shuttle’s tiles
coating with the proper optical major improvements included
lay in work dating to the early 1960s
properties needed to maintain the reduced weight, decreased
at Lockheed Missiles & Space
appropriate on-orbit temperatures for vulnerability to orbital debris, and
Company. A Lockheed patent
vehicle thermal control purposes. minimal thermal conductivity.
disclosure provided the first description
The low-temperature reusable surface
of a reusable insulation made of Orbiter tiles were bonded using strain
insulation tiles covered areas of the
ceramic fibers for use as a re-entry isolation pads and room-temperature
vehicle in which temperatures reached
vehicle heat shield. In other phased vulcanizing silicone adhesives. The
up to 649°C (1,200°F).
shuttle Thermal Protection System inner mold line of the tile was densified
development efforts, ablatives and hot The Orbiter used several different prior to the strain isolation pad bond,
structures were the early competitors. types of tiles, depending on thermal which aided in the uniform distribution
However, tight cost constraints and a requirements. Over the years of of the stress concentration loads at the
strong desire to build the Orbiter with the program, the tile composition tile-to-strain isolation pad interface.
an aluminum airframe pointed toward changed with NASA’s improved The structure beneath the tile-to-tile
the innovative, lightweight, and understanding of thermal conditions. gaps was protected by filler bar that
reusable insulation material that could The majority of these tiles, prevented gas flow from penetrating
be bonded directly to the airframe skin. manufactured by Lockheed Missiles into the tile bond line. NASA used gap
& Space Company, were LI-900 fillers (prevented hot air intrusion and
NASA used two categories of Thermal
(bulk density of 144 kg/m3 tile-to-tile contact) in areas of high
Protection System tiles on the
[9 pounds/ft3]) and LI-2200 (bulk differential pressures, extreme
Orbiter—low- and high-temperature
density of 352 kg/m3 [22 pounds/ft3]).
Damage Tolerance Criteria different environments. Testing in an an imagery sensor package attached
Arc Jet facility provided the closest to the Shuttle Robotic Arm was used to
To make use of the inspection data,
ground simulation for the temperature perform the inspection. The sensor
NASA developed criteria for critical
and chemical constituents of re-entry. package contained two laser imaging
damage. Damage on reinforced
Engineers performed numerous tests for systems and a high-resolution digital
carbon-carbon ranged from spallation
both reinforced carbon-carbon and tile camera. Additionally, astronauts residing
(i.e., breaking up or reducing) of the
to establish damage criteria and verify on the International Space Station (ISS)
silicon carbide coating to complete
newly developed thermal math models photographed the entire Orbiter as it
penetration of the substrate. Tiles
used for real-time mission support. executed an aerial maneuver, similar
could be gouged by ascent debris to
to a backflip, 182 m (600 ft) from the
varying depths with a wide variety of
ISS. The crew transmitted photographs
cavity shapes. The seriousness of any Inspection Capability
to Houston, Texas, where engineers
given damage was highly dependent
NASA developed an inspection on the ground evaluated the images for
on local temperature and pressure
capability to survey the reinforced any potential damage.
environments. NASA initiated an
carbon-carbon and tile surfaces. This
extensive Arc Jet test program during NASA employed an additional
capability provided images to assess
Return to Flight activities to detection system to gauge threats from
any potential impact damages from
characterize the survivability of ascent and on-orbit impacts to the wing
ascent and orbital debris. A boom with
multiple damage configurations in leading edge. As part of preparing the
Orbiter for launch, technicians placed Conclusion modify and upgrade both design and
accelerometers on the spar aluminum materials, thus increasing the robustness
The Orbiter Thermal Protection Systems
structure behind the reinforced and safety of these critical systems
on the shuttle proved to be effective,
carbon-carbon panels at the attachment during the life of the program. Through
with the exception of STS-107 (2003).
locations. Forty-four sensors across the tragedy of the Columbia accident,
On that flight, the catastrophic loss
both wings detected accelerations NASA developed new inspection and
was caused by a large piece of foam
from potential impacts and relayed the repair techniques as protective measures
debris that was liberated from the ET.
data to on-board laptops, which could to ensure the success and safety of
Advanced materials and coatings
be transmitted to ground engineers. subsequent shuttle missions.
were key in enabling the success of
Using test-correlated dynamic
the shuttle in high-temperature
models, engineers assessed suspected
environments. Experience gathered
impacts for their level of risk based
over many shuttle missions led the
on accelerometer output.
Thermal Protection Systems team to
The External Tank’s Thermal Protection System consisted of a number of different foam formulations displayed here. NASA selected materials for
their insulating properties, and for their ability to withstand ascent aerodynamic forces.
specially designed, environmentally applied at Lockheed Martin’s Michoud As the ET was the only expendable
controlled spray cells and sprayed Assembly Facility in New Orleans, part of the shuttle, NASA placed
in several phases, often over a period Louisiana, where the tank was particular emphasis on keeping tank
of several weeks. Prior to spraying, manufactured. Some closeout Thermal manufacturing costs at a minimum.
engineers tested the foam’s raw Protection System was applied either by To achieve this objective, the agency
material and mechanical properties hand or manual spraying at the Kennedy based its original design and
to ensure the materials met NASA Space Center (KSC) in Florida. manufacturing plans on the use
specifications. After the spraying was of existing, well-proven materials
complete, NASA performed multiple Design and Testing and processes with a planned
visual inspections of all foam evolution to newer products as they
surfaces as well as tests of “witness” In the early 1970s, NASA developed became available.
specimens in some cases. a spiral “barber pole” Thermal
Protection System application The original baseline Thermal
More than 90% of the foam was technique that was used through Protection System configuration called
sprayed onto the tank robotically, the end of the program. This was an for the sprayable Stepanfoam® BX-250
leaving 10% to be applied by manual early success for the ET Program, foam (used on the Saturn S-II stage) on
spraying or by hand. Most foam was but many challenges soon followed. the liquid hygrogen sidewalls (acreage)
in a fraction of the time required by previous processes, with Carbon Fiber Rope
Thermal Barrier
enhanced reproducibility.
ATK chose an innovative approach through emerging technologies. Using carbon fiber rope instead of rubber insulation in solid rocket motor
Rather than attempt to prevent gas intrusion with manually nozzle joints simplified the joint assembly process and improved shuttle
safety margins.
applied rubber fill compound, the heat energy from internal gases
would be extracted with a special joint filler and the O-ring seals
structure allowed it to conform to tolerance assembly conditions.
would be pressurized with the cooled gas.
The thermal barrier provided flexibility and resiliency to
ATK’s solution was based on a pliable, braided form of high- accommodate joint opening or closing during operation. Upon
performance carbon material able to withstand harsh temperature pressurization, the thermal barrier seated itself in the groove to
environments. The braided design removed most of the thermal obstruct hot gas flow from bypassing the barrier.
energy from the gas and inhibited flow induced by pressure
The carbon fiber solution increased Space Shuttle safety margins.
fluctuations. The carbon fiber thermal barrier was easier to install
Carbon fibers are suited to a nonoxidizing environment,
and significantly reduced motor assembly time.
withstanding high temperatures without experiencing degradation.
In a rocket environment, carbon fibers withstood temperatures up The barrier provided a temperature drop across a single diameter,
to 3,816°C (6,900°F). The braided structure and high surface reducing gas temperature to O-rings well below acceptable levels.
area-to-mass ratio made the barrier an excellent heat exchanger The thermal barrier also kept molten alumina slag—generated
while allowing a restricted yet uniform gas flow. The weave during solid fuel burn—from contacting and affecting O-rings.
and forward dome, and SLA-561 (used In the late 1970s, however, design of detaching from the ET. This caused a
on the Viking Mars Lander) on the aft the Orbiter tiles advanced to the point reassessment of the Thermal Protection
dome, intertank, and liquid oxygen where it became apparent that they System design to prevent the formation
tank in the areas of high heating. were susceptible to damage from ice of ice anywhere on the tank forward
First Flight Approaches coefficient of thermal expansion of testing of foam samples on the roof of
the ablator binder, as compared to the the Michoud Assembly Facility,
As the Space Shuttle Program moved aluminum, would cause the ablator however, showed the damage to be so
toward the first shuttle flight in 1981, to shrink. This would introduce shallow that it was insignificant. NASA
NASA faced another challenge. biaxial tension in the ablator and decided not to paint the tanks, resulting
Approximately 37 m2 (400 ft2) of corresponding shear forces at the bond in a weight savings of about 260 kg
ablator became debonded from the line near any edges, discontinuities, (580 pounds), lowered labor costs, and
tank’s aluminum surface the first time or cracks. Then, when the tank was the introduction of the “orange” tank.
a tank was loaded with liquid hydrogen. pressurized, tank expansion from
While the failure analysis was pressure would compound this shear
inconclusive, it appeared that the force, possibly causing the bond line
Environmental Challenges
production team had tried to bond too to fail. NASA decided to pre-pressurize Knowledge of toxic properties and
large an area and did not get the ablator the liquid hydrogen tank with helium environmental contaminations
panels under the required vacuum gas prior to filling the tank for increased over the 30 years of the
before the adhesive pot life ran out. launch—and to pressures higher than Space Shuttle Program. Federal laws
Technicians at Michoud Assembly flight pressures—to stretch the ablator reflected these changes. For instance,
Facility reworked the application when it was warm and elastic. ozone-depleting substances, including
process for the ET at their facility and some Freon® compounds, reduced the
the first tank at KSC. Because early test data showed the tank
protecting atmospheric ozone layer.
insulation could be adversely affected
Following the ablator bonding NASA worked with its contractors to
by ultraviolet light, NASA painted the
problem, NASA intensified its analysis reduce both toxicity and environmental
first several tanks white, using a
of the ablator/aluminum bond line. consequences for the cooling agents
fire-retardant latex paint. Exposure
This analysis showed that the higher and the foam compounds.
Aerogel-based
Insulation System
Precluded
Hazardous Ice
Formation
During the STS-114 (2005) tanking test,
the External Tank Gaseous Hydrogen Vent
Arm Umbilical Quick Disconnect formed
ice and produced liquid nitrogen/air.
Testing of gaseous hydrogen vent arm umbilical disconnect equipment at Kennedy Space Center.
The phenomenon was repeated during
subsequent testing and launch. For the accomplished with two changes to the shroud was maintained above freezing
shuttle, ice presented a debris hazard umbilical purge shroud. First, the space with no ice formation and that no nitrogen
to the Orbiter Thermal Protection System agency improved the shroud purge gas penetrated into the shroud purge cavity.
and was unacceptable at this umbilical flow to obtain the desired purge cavity NASA used the modified design on
location. The production of uncontrolled gas concentrations. Second, technicians STS-121 (2006) and all subsequent flights.
liquid nitrogen/air presented a hazard to wrapped multiple layers of aerogel
Aerogel insulation is a viable alternative to
the shuttle, launch pad, and ground blanket material directly onto the quick
the current technology for quick
support equipment. disconnect metal surfaces within the
disconnect shrouds purged with helium or
purged shroud cavity.
NASA incorporated a fix into the existing nitrogen to preclude the formation of ice
design to preclude ice formation and NASA tested the design modifications at and liquid nitrogen/air. In most cases,
the uncontrolled production of liquid the Kennedy Space Center Cryo Test Lab. aerogel insulation eliminates the need for
nitrogen/air. The resolution was Tests showed that the outer surface of the active purge systems.
Liquid Liquid
Hydrogen Hydrogen
Tank Ice Tank-to-Intertank
Frost Ramps Flange Foam
Thermal Protection
System Closeout
NASA decided to delete the tank’s protuberance air load ramps and implement design changes to the 17 ice frost ramps on the liquid hydrogen tank. Both
these measures required adjustments in the components’ Thermal Protection System configuration and application processes. Materials and techniques
were also altered to improve the Thermal Protection System closeout of the flange joining the liquid hydrogen tank with the intertank.
70
current nondestructive testing 60
methods—the principal nondestructive 50
testing methods used to inspect shuttle 40
components during manufacturing. 30
Data showed that inspectors certified to 20
aerospace inspection standards could, 10
on average, perform to a certain 0
probability of detection level defined Flaw Size Increasing
Pulse Velocity
Measurement Unit
Time
Transmitter
Sound Waves
Tile
Receiver
Tile
order of 640 m/sec (2,100 ft/sec), and Nondestructive Testing of External areas. The loss of foam applied to the
the through-the-thickness flat-wise Tank Spray-on Foam Insulation large areas of the tank was not as much
tensile strength was on the order of of concern because the automated
Prior to the Columbia accident, no
1.69 kg/cm2 (24 pounds/in2). The LI-900 acreage spray-on process was better
nondestructive testing methods were
acceptance criterion for sonic velocity controlled, making it more unlikely to
available for External Tank foam
was set at 518 m/sec (1,700 ft/sec), come off. In the event it did come off,
inspection, although NASA pursued
which corresponded to a minimum the pieces would likely be small
development efforts from the early
strength of 0.91 kg/cm2 (13 pounds/in2). because acreage foam was relatively
1980s until the early 1990s. The foam
Sonic velocity testing was phased thin. NASA’s intense focus resulted in
was effectively a collection of small
out in the early 1990s. the development and implementation
air-filled bubbles with thin polyurethane
of two methods for foam inspection—
membranes, making the foam a thermal
terahertz imaging and backscatter
Post-Columbia Accident and electrical insulator with very high
radiography—that represented new and
Nondestructive acoustic attenuation. Due to these
unique application of nondestructive
Testing of External Tank properties, it was not feasible to inspect
inspection methods.
the foam with conventional methods
A consequence of the Columbia such as eddy current, ultrasonics, or
(STS-107) accident in 2003 was the Terahertz Imaging
thermography. In addition, since the
development of several nondestructive foam was considered nonstructural, Terahertz imaging is a method that
innovations, including terahertz imaging problems of delaminations occurring operates in the terahertz region of the
and backscatter radiography of External during foam application and foam electromagnetic spectrum between
Tank foam and thermography of the popping off (“popcorning”) during microwave frequencies and far-infrared
reinforced carbon-carbon—both on ascent were considered manageable frequencies. Low-density hydrocarbon
orbit and on the ground—during vehicle through process control. materials like External Tank foam were
turnaround. The loss of foam, reinforced relatively transparent to terahertz
carbon-carbon impact damage, and After the Columbia accident, NASA
radiation. Terahertz imaging used a
on-orbit inspection of Thermal focused on developing nondestructive
pulser to transmit energy into a
Protection System damage were all testing methods for finding voids
structure and a receiver to record the
problems that could be mitigated to and delaminations in the thick,
energy reflected off the substrate or
some extent through the application of hand-sprayed foam applications
internal defects. As the signal traveled
nondestructive testing methods. around protuberances and closeout
through the structure, its basic wave
Transmitter Receiver 2
Transmitted 1 3
1 Foam-Air Pulse
Reflection
Time
2 Air-Metal
Transmitted Reflection
Pulse
3 Metal-Foam-Metal
Time Reflection Foam-Air Reflection 1
indicates an air gap or
delamination.
Insulating 1
Foam Air Gap
2 3
Air Gap
Aluminum Substrate
properties were altered by the Backscatter Radiography that is scanned over the test object. The
attenuation of the material and any backscattering of x-rays results from
Backscatter radiography uses a
internal defects. An image was made by the Compton effect—or scattering—
conventional industrial x-ray tube to
scanning the pulser/receiver in which absorption of the incident
generate a collimated beam of x-rays
combination over the foam surface and or primary x-rays by the atoms of the
displaying the received signal.
Probability of detection studies of
Backscatter X-ray Imaging System
inserted artificial voids showed around X-ray Tube
90% detection of the larger voids in
simple geometries, but less than 90%
detection in the more-complicated X-rays
geometries of voids around protrusions. Collimator Detector
Further refinements showed that
delaminations were particularly difficult Collimated Backscatter
to detect. The detection threshold for a X-ray Beam X-rays
2.54-cm- (1-in.)-diameter laminar defect
was found to be a height of 0.508 cm
(0.2 in.), essentially meaning Insulating
Foam
delaminations could not be detected.
The terahertz inspection method was
used for engineering evaluation, and
any defects found were dealt with by an I
Insulating foam covers the Aluminum Substrate
engineering review process. External Tank.
An irradiated column of foam that has
voids produces less backscattered
x-rays than a void-free column of foam.
Additional Nondestructive
Testing
Most nondestructive testing
innovations resulted from problems
that the shuttle encountered over
the years, where nondestructive testing
provided all or part of the solution.
Other solutions worth mentioning
include: ultrasonic extensometer
measurements of critical shuttle bolt
tensioning; terahertz imaging of
corrosion under tiles; phased array Friction stir welding units, featuring auto-adjustable pin tools, welded External Tank barrel
ultrasonic testing of the External sections at NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, Louisiana. The units measured
Tank friction stir welds and the 8.4 m (27.5 ft) in diameter and approximately 7.6 m (25 ft) tall to accommodate the largest
barrel sections.
shuttle crawler-transporter shoes;
thermographic leak detection of the In the mid 1990s, NASA pursued the implementation of friction stir welding
main engine nozzle; digital
technology—a process developed by The Welding Institute of Cambridge, England—
radiography of Columbia debris;
to improve External Tank welds. This effort led to the invention of an auto-adjustable
surface replication of flow liner cracks;
welding pin tool adopted by the Space Shuttle Program, the Ares Program (NASA-
and the on-board wing leading edge
health monitoring impact system. developed heavy launch vehicles), and industry.
Standard fusion-welding techniques rely on torch-generated heat to melt and join the
metal. Friction stir welding does not melt the metal. Instead, it uses a rotating pin and
“shoulder” to generate friction, stir the metal together, and forge a bond. This process
results in welds with mechanical properties superior to fusion welds.
During 2002-2003, NASA and the External Tank prime contractor, Lockheed Martin,
implemented auto-adjustable pin tool friction stir welding for liquid hydrogen and liquid
oxygen tank longitudinal welds. Since that time, these friction stir welds have been
virtually defect-free. NASA’s invention was being used to weld Ares upper-stage
cryogenic hardware. It has also been adopted by industry and is being used in the
manufacturing of aerospace and aircraft frames.
Dynamic Dynamic
Displacement Displacement
Induced Environment
Characterization
NASA developed mathematical models
to assess and predict the induced
environment in the Orbiter cargo bay
during the design and development
phase of the Space Shuttle Program.
Models contained the vehicle geometry,
vehicle flight attitude, gas and vapor
emission source characteristics, and
used low-pressure gas transport physics
to calculate local gas densities, column
densities (number of molecular species
seen along a line of sight), as well as
contaminant deposition effects on
functional surfaces. Gas transport
calculations were based on low-pressure The Atlantic Ocean southeast of the Bahamas is in the background as Columbia’s Shuttle Robotic Arm
molecular flow physics and included and end effector grasp a multi-instrument monitor for detecting contaminants. The experiment, called
scattering from Orbiter surfaces and the the Induced Environment Contaminant Monitor, was flown on STS-4 (1982). The tail of the Orbiter can
be seen below.
natural low-Earth orbit environment.
The Induced Environment surfaces, quartz-crystal microbalances subsequent days. Shuttle flight attitude
Contamination Monitor measured for deposited mass measurement, requirements could affect the cargo bay
the induced environment on three a camera/photometer pair for particle gaseous environment via solar heating
missions—Space Transportation measurement in the field of view, effects as well as the gases produced by
System (STS)-2 (1981), STS-3 (1982), and a mass spectrometer. Additional engine firings. These gases could reach
and STS-4 (1982)—and was capable flight measurements made on the payload bay by direct or scattered
of being moved using the Shuttle STS-52 (1992) and many payloads flow. Frequently, specific payload or
Robotic Arm to various locations for provided more data. shuttle system attitude or thermal
specific measurements. Most control requirements conflicted with
Before the induced environment
measurements were made during the the quiescent induced environment
measurements could be properly
on-orbit phase. This measurement required by some payloads.
interpreted, several on-orbit operational
package was flown on the three aspects needed to be understood. With the above operational
missions to assess shuttle system Because of the size of the vehicle and characteristics, data collected with the
performance. Instruments included a its payloads, desorption of adsorbed monitor and subsequent shuttle
humidity monitor, an air sampler for gases such as water, oxygen, and operations showed that, in general, the
gas collection and analysis after nitrogen (adsorbed on Earth) took a measured data either met or were close
return, a cascade impactor for fairly long time, the induced to the requirements of sensitive
particulate measurement, passive environment on the first day of a payloads during quiescent periods.
samples for optical degradation of mission was affected more than on A large qualification to this statement
a b c
a) Scanning electron microscope image of a typical Kapton ® polyimide plastic sheet. The various specs and bumps are from the inorganic
filler used in plastic sheet manufacture.
b) Scanning electron microscope image of a typical Kapton ® polyimide plastic sheet after exposure to surface bombardment by atomic
oxygen in low-Earth orbit. The rough surface is typical of atomic oxygen attack on plastics in low-Earth orbit and is the result of the strong
dependence of chemical reaction on atom-surface collision energy. Note how some of the inorganic filler particles are standing on
pedestals because they protect the underlying plastic from atomic oxygen attack.
c) Scanning electron microscope image of a microelectron fabrication etching target also flown on STS-46 and exposed to low-Earth orbit
atomic oxygen. The highly directional attack of low-Earth orbit atomic oxygen produced a clean, high-resolution removal of the unprotected
plastic around the pattern of protective inorganic surface coatings. High-speed neutral atomic oxygen beams in ground-based production
facilities may be a useful adjunct to microelectronic production as described in US Patent 5,271,800.
Polished
1 µm
The Outcomes
The atomic force microscope affords a visual evaluation of surface preparation processes Beyond meeting the primary program
to improve understanding of their effects on bonding. The top panel represents topography objectives, a number of resulting
of a grit blast surface for comparison to a highly polished one. The atomic force microscope
uses an extremely fine probe to measure minute interactions with surface features even benefits were noted. First, through
down to an atomic scale. The maps at left are scaled from black at the bottom of valleys to increased data sharing, employees
white at the tops of peaks within the scanned area. The 3-D projections at right are on a communicated more effectively, both
© ATK. All rights reserved.
common height scale. The grit blast surface clearly offers greatly increased surface area internally and with subtier suppliers.
and mechanical interlocking for enhanced bonding. Beyond simple topography, the probe
interactions with atomic forces can also measure and map properties such as microscopic The powerful analytical methods
hardness or elastic modulus on various particles and/or phase transitions in a composite employed also added to the suppliers’
material, which in turn can be correlated with chemical and physical properties. materials knowledge base. Subtle
materials changes that possibly
resulted from process drift or changes
The ideal system would enable a The Fingerprinting Process at subtier suppliers were detectable.
qualified chemist to immediately Eight subtier suppliers subsequently
examine original chemical analysis data The chemical fingerprinting program,
implemented their own in-house
for the subtle yet significant differences which began in 1998 with a prioritized
chemical fingerprinting programs to
between the latest lot of material and list of 14 critical materials, employed
improve product consistency, recertify
previous good or bad samples. a team approach to quantify and
material after production changes,
document each material. The
or even help develop key steps in
To develop such a system, commercially interdisciplinary team included design
the manufacturing process to ensure
available hardware and software were engineering, materials and processes
repeatable quality levels.
used to the greatest extent possible. engineering, procurement quality
Since an electronic framework to tie engineering, and analytical chemistry. Additionally, engineers could now
the data together did not exist, one was Each discipline group proposed test accurately establish shelf-life
designed in-house. plans that included the types of testing extensions and storage requirements
to be developed. Following approval,
fill volumes to limit the heat to which comparable; however, in the case of aluminum-lithium panels together
the aluminum-lithium was subjected. the aluminum-lithium alloy repair, the and simulating a weld repair in the
strengths were lower. center of the original weld. The panel
Additional challenges in implementing
was then loaded to failure. The test
effective weld repairs caused NASA to Past experience and conventional
that was supposed to indicate better
reevaluate the criteria for measuring the thinking was that in the real hardware,
strength behavior than the excised
strength of the welds. In general, weld where the repair is embedded in a
repair material actually failed at a
repair strengths can be evaluated by long initial weld, the repaired weld
lower stress level.
excising a section of the repaired will yield and the load will be
material and performing a tensile test. redistributed to the original weld, To understand this condition, an
The strength behavior of the repaired resulting in higher capability. To extensive test program was initiated
material is compared to the strength demonstrate this assumption, a tensile to evaluate the behavior of repairs
behavior of the original weld material. test was conducted on a 43-cm- on a number of aluminum-copper
In the case of the aluminum-copper (17-in.)-wide aluminum-lithium panel alloy (Al 2219) and aluminum-
alloy Al 2219, the strengths were that was fabricated by welding two lithium alloy (Al 2195) panels.
Throttle
Leveraging the Space 700 35 Dynamic Pressure Constraints
100%
Shuttle Experience
600 30 Points at which the
Never before in the history of flight had actual dynamic pressure
meets the constraints 95%
such a complex vehicle and challenging 500 25
Throttle (Percent)
Throttle Up ĺ
Throttle Down ĺ
During ascent, the shuttle’s main engines were throttled down due to dynamic pressure
constraints. The goal was to get as close as possible to the constraints to maximize performance.
Abort To Orbit
Transatlantic Abort
Abort Once Around
Return To
Launch Site
Pacific Ocean
Near Hawaii Dryden
Flight
Launch Research
Site Europe Center,
Kennedy Space Western Eastern or Africa California
Center, Florida Atlantic Atlantic
External Tank
Separation
2.2g Control
2.2g Control
vehicle telemetry and complex vehicle
d 2 (Feet/Second
Systtem Limit
System L
performance predictor algorithms to Surface
Surfacce
Dynamic
10 Temperatur
ature
Temperature Constant
assist the crew in choosing the best Limitts
Limits Drag Pressure
Pressure
Phase C
Constraint
abort guidance targets and a safe 30 (overheating
(overheaating
due to high
h drag) Equilibrium
Eq
quilibrium
brium
landing site. The Abort Region Glid
de
Glide
Meters/Second
8 Transition
Transition
Drag Acceleration, Meters/Secon
“Undershoot”
“Undersh
hoot” Phasese
Determinator was the primary ground Phase
Pre-entry
Pre entry
e-e
e y
Summary 0 0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
The shuttle ascent and ascent flight 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
design were complex. NASA Relative Velocity
Velocity,
Velocity
y, Kilometers/Second (Thousands of Feet/Second)
developed and verified many
innovative guidance algorithms to Shuttle re-entry guidance was segmented into several phases—each designed to satisfy
accomplish mission objectives and unique constraints during flight. The narrow region of acceptable flight conditions was called
maintain vehicle and crew safety. the “flight corridor.” The surface temperature constraints resided at the lower altitude and
This legacy of flight techniques and high drag “undershoot” side of the flight corridor. In contrast, if the vehicle flew too close to
the “overshoot” boundary, it would not have enough drag acceleration to reach the landing
computer tools will prove invaluable site and could possibly skip back into orbit. As the vehicle penetrated deeper into the
to all new spacecraft developments. atmosphere, the undershoot corridor was redefined by the vehicle control system and dynamic
pressure constraints.
Forward Center-of-Gravity
Static Margin Control Limit
exceeded. Even after a successful Higher Drag and Heat Rate
45 Cros
ss Range
Reduced Range and Cross
landing, structural damage from heating
Control Limit
could make the vehicle un-reuseable; 40
therefore, it was essential that the
ees
Angle of Attack (Alpha), Degrees
grre
surface remain within those limits.
Degr
35
To accomplish this, different parts of
the vehicle were covered with different 30
types of protective material, depending
on local heating. 25
Lower D
Drag
The objective of the re-entry guidance 20
Increased
Increased Range
e and Static Margin Control Limit
Cross Ra
Cross Range
design during this phase was to ensure
that the heat-rate constraints of the 15
Forward Center-of-Gravity Control Limit
Thermal Protection System were not
compromised. That is why the constant 10
Landing
Site
80
Bank Angle, Degrees
40
Azimuth
0
Error
Error
-40
-80
30
20
muth Errorr, Degrees
R
Roll
oll R
10 Shuttle
Reversal
Banking
eversal
0
Azimuth
Equilibrium Glide Phase balance gravitational and centrifugal communication and tracking loss due
forces on the vehicle. During this to plasma shield interference) and also
As the speed of the shuttle dropped phase, only the reference drag profile in change runway landing direction due
below about 6,200 m/s (20,500 ft/s), the equilibrium glide phase was to landing wind changes.
the constant heat-rate phase ended and modified to correct range errors. All
the equilibrium glide phase began. This future phases were left at their nominal
was an intermediate phase between setting. This ranging approach was Constant Drag Phase
high heating and the rapidly increasing designed into the shuttle re-entry The constant drag phase began and
deceleration that occurred as the guidance to reserve ranging capability. the equilibrium glide phase ended
vehicle penetrated deeper into the This enabled the vehicle to when either the desired constant drag
atmosphere. This phase determined the accommodate large navigation errors acceleration target of 10 m/s2 (33 ft/s2)
drag-velocity reference required to post ionization blackout (ground
STS-1 launch (1981) from Kennedy Space Center, Florida. First crewed launch using two-fault-tolerant
Integrated Avionics System.
Multiplex Interface
Adapters (24 per computer) Flight Aft 1
Primary Secondary
Flight-critical Bus 5
Two Multiplex
Interface Adapters
Flight Forward 2
General Purpose
Primary Port Assortment of Primary Secondary Computer 2
Connections to various modules
two Data Buses selected to
Flight-critical
Secondary Port interface with Bus 2
devices in the
region supported
Control by the Flight Aft 2
multiplexer/
Electronics demultiplexer. Primary Secondary
Flight-critical
Bus 3
An error detection and correction code was implemented to “fix” flipped bits in a computer word by correcting any single erroneous bit.
Whenever the system experienced a memory bit flip fix, the information was downlinked to flight controllers on the ground in Houston,
Texas. The event time and the Orbiter’s ground track resulted in the pattern of bit flips around the Earth.
The bit flips correlated with the known space radiation environment. This phenomena had significant consequences for error detection
and correction codes, which could only correct one error in a word and would be foiled by a multi-bit error. In response, system architects
selected bits for each word from different chips, making it almost impossible for a single particle to upset more than one bit per word.
In all, the upgraded Orbiter general purpose computers performed flawlessly in spite of their susceptibility to ionizing radiation.
Single event upsets are indicated by yellow squares. Multi-bit single event upsets are indicated by red triangles.
In these single events, anywhere from two to eight bits were typically upset by a single charged particle.
to the timing of the intervals when That sequence (input/process/output) The four general purpose computers
general purpose computers were to repeated 25 times per second. The exchanged synchronization status
query the bus terminal units for data, aerodynamic characteristics of the approximately 350 times per second.
then process that data to select the best shuttle dictated the 25-hertz (Hz) rate. The typical failure resulted in the
data from redundant sensors, create In other words, the digital autopilot computer halting anything resembling
commands, displays, etc., and finally had to generate stability augmentation normal operation.
output those command and status data commands at that frequency for the
to designated bus terminal units. vehicle to retain stable flight control.
On-orbit Operations
Operational
Sequence 201
Operational Operational
Sequence 202 Sequence 301
Operational Orbital Maneuvering
Operational Sequence 801
Nominal Orbit ~278 km Sequence 106 System Deorbit Burn
(150 nautical miles)
Operational
Sequence 302
Orbital Maneuvering
System Orbital Insertion
Operational Operational
Sequence 105 Sequence 303
Operational Orbital Maneuvering
Sequence 104 System 2
Entry Interface
External Tank Orbital Maneuvering
Launch Preparation System 1 Operational
at Kennedy Space Separation
Sequence 304
Center, Florida
Operational Solid Rocket
Sequence 901 Booster Separation
Operational
Operational
Sequence 103 Orbiter Flight
Sequence 101 Operational
Optional Operational Computer Software Sequence 305
Sequence 601
Landing
Operational
Liftoff from Kennedy Sequence 901
Space Center, Florida System Applications
Software Software
Operational
Sequence 102
Guidance, Systems
Navigation, and Management Payload
Control
Due to computer memory limitations, the flight software was divided into a number of separate programs called operational sequences.
Each sequence provided functions specific to a particular mission phase and were only loaded into memory during that phase of flight.
software load from mass memory. The Backup Flight System as an added technology that was current during
backup computer would then remain level of protection to reduce the the initial planning stages did not
on standby. During normal operations, possibility of generic software errors impose limits on what the space
when the primary system controlled common to the primary system. agency could accomplish in this area.
the Orbiter, the backup system operated The entire Backup Flight System was NASA succeeded in pushing the
in “listen” mode to monitor and obtain contained in one memory configuration, boundaries for what was possible by
data from all prime machines and loaded before liftoff, and normally structuring a system that could handle
their assigned sensors. By acquiring maintained in that machine. multiple functions within very real
these data, the Backup Flight System parameters. It also structured a backup
maintained computational currency and, support system capable of handling
thus, the capability to assume control Success—On Multiple Levels the demands of spaceflight at a critical
of the Orbiter at any time. NASA overcame the obstacles it moment’s notice.
NASA independently developed and faced in creating the shuttle’s Primary
coded the software package for the Avionics Software System through
ingenuity and expertise. Even
Astronaut Mark Lee trains for his Simplified Aid for EVA Rescue test flight (STS-64 [1994]) using the
virtual reality flight trainer (left) and on orbit (right).
Astronauts Richard Linnehan (above left) and Nancy Currie (below) use the zero-gravity mass handling simulation and the Shuttle Robotic Arm simulation to
practice combined operations prior to flight. The large image on the right is a rendering of the simulation. The inset is an actual photo of Astronaut Richard
Linnehan (STS-109 [2002]) unfolding a solar array while anchored to the end of the robotic arm.
R
Requirements,
equirements, Standard
S tandard Method Requirements,
Requirements, Using Systems Maintenance
Using
data, corporate data, corporate Automated Repair Tasks S
System
ystem
knowledge, etc. knowledge, etc.
The Systems Maintenance Automated Repair Tasks allowed corporate knowledge to be kept in-house while increasing efficiency and lowering cost.
training simulation. The Simplified Aid Space Transportation System (STS)-102, awareness function during Space
for EVA Rescue (SAFER) on-board and was on all subsequent shuttle and Station Robotic Arm operations by
trainer required software that would run station flights with the exception of connecting to the on-board payload
on the original IBM 760 laptop STS-107 (2003). That flight did not general support computer and
computers on board the ISS and thus carry a robotic arm, had no planned using the telemetry from the arm to
required the UNIX-based code to be EVAs, and did not dock with the ISS. update the graphic representation in
ported to a Windows-based operating the program display.
system. The limited graphics capability Benefits for Robotic Arm The same software was compatible with
of those computers also required Operations laptop computers flown on the shuttle,
additional model database artifacts that
The DOUG software package supported and the graphical Shuttle Robotic Arm
provided level-of-detail manipulation to
SAFER training. The software was could be similarly driven with shuttle
make the simulation adequate for its
also capable of providing the situational arm telemetry. Different viewpoints
intended purpose. This additional
level-of-detail capability allowed the
same high-fidelity model database
developed for EVA training in the
virtual reality facility to be used on
the laptop computers on the ISS.
To obtain adequate graphics
performance and screen update rates
for simulating SAFER flying, crew
members could select a low level-of-
detail scene, which still displayed
enough detail for the recognition of
station landmarks and motion cues.
The DOUG software package, when not
in use as a trainer, also provided a
highly detailed, interactive 3-D model of
the ISS that was viewable from any
vantage point via keyboard inputs. The
software first flew on board both shuttle
and station in March 2001, and during Dynamic Onboard Ubiquitous Graphics displays multiple simulated camera and synthetic eye-point
views on the same screen. The simulated camera views show the Japanese Experiment Module and
the Columbus Laboratory in the top left image, the Mini Research Module-1 in the top right image,
and the International Space Station in the bottom image.
An example of the tile highlighting and painting feature in Dynamic Onboard Ubiquitous Graphics.
8JOH
r"MVNJOVN4LJO4USVDUVSFBOE
)POFZDPNC4LJOT
r"MVNJOVN8FCBOE5SVTT4QBST
r"MVNJOVN)POFZDPNC&MFWPO4LJOT
#PEZ'MBQ
r"MVNJOVN)POFZDPNC4LJOT
caused by oscillations in the propellant flow The Space Shuttle Program took a proactive
rate that feeds the engines. The propellant approach with a “Pogo Prevention Plan”
flow rate oscillations can result in drafted in the early 1970s. The plan called
oscillations in engine thrust. If a frequency for comprehensive stability analysis and
band of the thrust oscillations is in phase testing programs. Testing consisted of
with the natural frequency of engine modal tests to verify the structural dynamic
structure and is of sufficient magnitude to characteristics, hydroelastic tests of External a feature. The space agency selected and
overcome structural damping, the Tank and propellant lines, and pulse testing included an accumulator in the design
amplitude of the propellant flow rate of the Space Shuttle Main Engines. The plan of the main engines. This approach proved
oscillation will increase. Subsequently, this baselined a Pogo suppression system— successful. Flight data demonstrated that
event will increase the amplitude of the the first NASA launch vehicle to have such the Space Shuttle was free of Pogo.
Bearing—Steering
the Reusable
Solid Rocket Motor Propellant
A flexible bearing allowed the nozzle to be During the first minutes of flight, a Thrust Vector Control System housed at the base of each
vectored. At about 2.5 m (8 ft) in diameter solid rocket motor provided a majority of the steering capability for the shuttle. A flexible
and 3,200 kg (7,000 pounds), this bearing bearing enabled nozzle movement. Two hydraulic actuators generated the mechanical force
was the largest flexible bearing in needed to move the nozzle.
established the level of damage that Because of the high fatigue Summary
would be allowed for each type of durability of the graphite-epoxy
structure. NASA selected 14 areas construction of the payload bay doors The unique approaches taken during
of the Orbiter to represent the various and Orbital Maneuvering System the Space Shuttle Program in validating
structural configurations. pods, these structures were not the structural integrity of the Orbiter
tested to failure. Instead, the strains airframe set a precedent in the NASA
The allowable damage was reduced programs that followed. Even as more
measured during the acoustic tests
analytically to account for the accurate analysis software and faster
were correlated with mathematical
damage induced by the flight loads computers are developed, the need for
models and adequate fatigue life was
and temperature cycles for all regions anchoring predictions in the reality of
demonstrated analytically. These test
of the vehicle. testing remains a cornerstone in the safe
articles were subsequently used as
flight hardware. flight of all space vehicles.
justify a safe reduction in the factor of pressure vessel, two titanium Space Transportation System (STS)-43.
safety on burst from 2.0 to 1.5, resulting hemispheres had to be welded together NASA removed these vessels from
in an additional 546 kg (1,203 pounds) to form the liner. Welding titanium is the Orbiter.
of mass saved from the Orbiter. difficult and unintentional voids are
The subsequent failure investigation
sometimes created. Voids in the welds
Even with all of the development found that, during manufacture, 89
of two Main Propulsion System
testing, two non-stress rupture pores formed in the weld whereas the
vessels had been missed during the
composite overwrapped pressure typical number for other Orbiter vessels
acceptance inspection. In May 1991,
vessels failures occurred on shuttle. was 15. Radiographic inspection of the
a Main Propulsion System helium
The complexity of the welding process welds showed that the pores had
pressurization vessel started leaking
on certain materials contributed to initiated fatigue cracks that eventually
on the Atlantis prior to the launch of
these failures. To build a spherical broke through the liner, thereby causing
Fracture Control
Software Development
Few analytical tools were available
for fracture mechanics analysis at the Fracture
Fractur pretest
e mechanics pr etest and
posttest specimens for
start of the Space Shuttle Program. behavior..
characterizing material behavior
The number of available analytical
solutions was limited to a few idealized ı
crack and loading configurations, and
information on material dependency
was scarce. Certainly, computing
power and availability provided no Crack in a payload mounting plate.
a
comparison to what eventually became 2c
Backdropped by the blackness of space and Earth’s horizon, Atlantis’ Orbiter Docking System (foreground) and the Canadarm—the Shuttle Robotic Arm
developed by Canada—in the payload bay are featured in this image photographed by an STS-122 (2008) crew member during Flight Day 2 activities.
Crew Compartment
Translational
Display and Hand Controller
Control Panel
Thermal
Joint Brakes Blankets
End Effector
Arm Electronics
Data
From/To
Shuttle Arm Booms
General
Purpose
Computer Rotational End Effector
Hand Electronics Unit
Controller
Joint Gearbox
End Effector
Brakes and
Clutches
Manipulator Arm Electronics
Controller
Interface Unit
Joint Motor
With a total length of 15.24 m (50 ft), the Shuttle Robotic Arm consisted of two lightweight high-strength tubes, each 0.381 m (1.25 ft) in
diameter and 6.71 m (22 ft) in length, with an elbow joint between them. From a shoulder joint at the base of the arm providing yaw and pitch
movement, the upper boom extended outward to the elbow joint providing pitch movement from which the lower arm boom stretched to a
wrist joint providing pitch, yaw, and roll movement. The end effector was used to grapple the payload.
The closed-circuit television system The interfacing end of the Shuttle Close-up View of End Effector
consisted of a color camera on a pan/tilt Robotic Arm was equipped with a and Grapple Fixture
unit near the elbow joint and a second fairly complicated electromechanical
camera in a fixed location on the wrist construction referred to as the end
joint, which was primarily used to view effector. This device, the analog
a grapple fixture target when the arm to a human hand, was used to grab,
was capturing a payload. or grapple, a payload by means
of a tailored interface known as a
Self checks existed throughout all the End Effector
grapple fixture.
Shuttle Robotic Arm electronics to
assess arm performance and apply The end effector was equipped with a
appropriate commands to stop the arm, camera and light used to view the
should a failure occur. Caution and grapple fixture target on the payload
warning displays provided the operator being captured. The robotic arm
with insight into the cause of the failure provided video to the crew at the aft Grapple Fixture
and remaining capability to facilitate flight deck, and the camera view helped
the development of a workaround plan. the crew properly position the end
Flat floor testing of the Shuttle Robotic Arm. Challenger’s (STS-8 [1983]) payload flight test article is lifted from the
payload bay and held over clouds and water on Earth.
effector relative to the grapple fixture one technical challenge, but solving test operations that started with an
prior to capturing a payload. When equations combining 0.2268-kg unloaded arm and then tested the arm
satisfied with the relative position of (0.5-pound) motor shafts and 29,478-kg handling progressively heavier
the end effector to the payload grapple (65,000-pound) payloads also payloads up to one emulating the
fixture using the grapple fixture target, challenged computers at the time. inertia of a 7,256-kg (16,000-pound)
the crew executed a command to Canada—the provider of the Shuttle payload—the payload flight test article.
capture and secure the payload. Robotic Arm—and the United States These data were used to verify the
both developed simulation models. Shuttle Robotic Arm models.
Since the Shuttle Robotic Arm could
The simulation responses were tested
not lift its own weight on Earth, all Future on-orbit operations were tested
against each other as well as data
proposed operations had to be tested preflight in ground-based simulations
from component tests (e.g., motors,
with simulations. In fact, terrestrial both with and without an operator
gearboxes) and flat floor tests. Final
certification was a significant controlling the Shuttle Robotic Arm.
verification could be completed only on
engineering challenge. Developing Simulations with an operator in the
orbit. During four early shuttle flights,
the complex equations describing the loop used mock-ups of the shuttle
strain gauges were added to the Shuttle
six-degrees-of-freedom arm was cockpit and required calculation of arm
Robotic Arm to measure loads during
Astronauts Joseph Acaba and Akihiko Hoshide in the functional shuttle aft cockpit in the Systems Engineering Simulator showing views seen out of the
windows. The Systems Engineering Simulator is located at NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas.
Laser
Manipulator Dynamic Range
Positioning Imager/
Mechanism Intensified
Manipulator Positioning
Mid Interface Television
Camera
Mechanism Interface Transition
Manipulator
Positioning
Forward
Mechanism Transition
Interface
Image from STS-114 (2005) of the Orbiter Boom Sensor System scanning the Orbiter.
Graphic simulation of the configuration of the Shuttle Robotic Arm/Orbiter Boom Sensor System for STS-121 (2006) flight test.
Launch Pad
Vehicle Assembly Building
Orbiter Pr
Processing
ocesssing Facility
Command and
Control Buses
Fiber-optic Terminal Equipment
General Ground
Ground
Orbiter Purpose Main Support Launch
Uplink Instrumentation Payload Computer Engine Equipment Data Bus
Front End
Front
Pr ocessors
Processors
Common Data Buffer
Console 1 Con
nsole 2
Console ........................ Console 18
The Launch Processing System provides command and control of the flight vehicle elements and ground support equipment during operations
at Kennedy Space Center.
thousands of pieces of information any system, defined simply by what panel, full cursor control, and a print
within his or her area of responsibility software was loaded. This flexibility screen capability. Upgrades included
from a single location. Each console allowed for several on-demand spare a mouse, which was added to the
in the firing room was functionally consoles for critical or hazardous console, and modernized cursor control
identical, and each was capable of tests such as launch countdown. and selection.
executing any set of application The console also featured full color
software programs. This meant any displays, programmable function
console could be assigned to support keys, a programmable function
Integrated Network
o
Control
e
System
Ground Command and Command and Component
Firing Room Consoles Data Bus Control Bus Control Bus Cabling
Checkout, Control
Control and Shuttle Local 1SJNBSZBOE
1SJNBSZBOE Ground
Ground Support
Monitor Subsystem Interface Contr
Controller
oller 4FDPOEBSZ
4FDPOEBSZ Equipment
Front
Front End Processor
Processor Box 3FNPUF
3FNPUF End Devices
*OQVU0VUQVU
*OQVU0VUQVU
r7BMWFT
r7BMWFT
4 BàOH3FNPUF
4BàOH3FNPUF r.PUPST
r.PUPST
Health
**OQVU0VUQVU
OQVU0VUQVU r)FBUFST
r)FBUFST
Monitoring rr4FOTPST
4FOTPST
Network r 7FIJDMFMPBEJOH
r7FIJDMFMPBEJOH
r$POUSPMQPXFS
r$POUSPMQPXFS
r&UD
r&UD
Area
Area Addressed
Addressed
by Integration
Control
Network Contr ol
ealth Mana
Health agement and
Management System
C
Configuration
onfigurati
g on Consoles
The Integrated Network Control System was a reliable, automated network connectivity, the Integrated Network Control System
network system that sent data and commands between the design used three independent networks.
shuttle Launch Control Center and hardware end items. It bridged
The network topology used a quad-redundant, fiber-optic,
industry automation technologies with customized aerospace
fault-tolerant ring for long-distance distribution over the
industry communication protocols and associated legacy end
Launch Control Center, mobile launcher platforms, Orbiter
item equipment. The design met several challenges, including
processing facilities, and two launch pads. Shorter distances
connectivity with 40,000 end items located within 28 separate
were accommodated with redundant media over coaxial
ground systems, all dispersed to 10 facilities. It provided data
cable for distribution over system and subsystem levels.
reliability, integrity, and emergency safing systems to ensure safe,
This network reduced cable and wiring for ground processing
successful launch operations.
over the Launch Complex 39 area by approximately 80%
Ground control and instrumentation systems for the Space and cable interconnects by 75%. It also reduced maintenance
Shuttle Launch Processing System used custom digital-to-analog and troubleshooting. This system was the first large-scale
hardware and software connected to an analog wire-based network control and health management system for the
distribution system. Loss of a data path during critical operations Space Shuttle Program and one of the largest, fully integrated
would compromise safety. To improve safety, data integrity, and control networks in the world.
Robotics System
Sprayed Thermal
Protection on
Solid Rocket Booster
Many Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) components
were covered with a spray-on thermal
protection material that shielded components
from aerodynamic heating during ascent.
The application process took place at the
SRB Assembly and Refurbishment Facility at An SRB aft skirt receives
Kennedy Space Center. The process resulted a robotically controlled layer
of Marshall Convergent
in overspray and accounted for 27% of Coating-1 Thermal Protection
hazardous air emissions. System material.
After each flight, the boosters were refurbished. This process began at
NASA’s Hangar AF Booster Recovery Facility at Cape Canaveral Air Force
Station. There, a robotic high-pressure water jet, or “hydrolase,” stripped the
components of their Thermal Protection System materials.
NASA installed the hydrolase system in 1998. Each booster structure was
numerically modeled. These models were used to program the robot to
follow the contour of each component.
A technician in a control booth monitors the
The Hangar AF wash facilities used a specially designed water filtration robotic high-pressure hydrolase as it strips
Thermal Protection System material from an
and circulation system to recycle and reuse the waste water.
SRB forward skirt.
Exception Monitoring monitored for specific measurements A software program at the console
exceeding a predefined set of limits. promptly reacted to the exception and
Another key concept designed into the When a Launch Processing System automatically sent a command or series
Launch Processing System software computer detected a measurement of commands to resolve the problem.
was the capability to recognize and exception—for example, the pressure in Similar software could also prevent
automatically react to out-of-bounds a fuel tank exceeded its upper limit— inadvertent damage by verifying
measurements. This capability was the computer immediately notified the required parameters prior to command
called exception monitoring, and it console responsible for that fuel tank. issuance, such as confirming that
Solid Rocket Booster case preparation. Propellant mixing. Solid Rocket Booster aft skirt processing
at the Assembly and Refurbishment Facility at
Kennedy Space Center.
By the end of the Space Shuttle Program, NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility—located A Team Effort
near New Orleans, Louisiana, and managed by Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville,
Alabama—delivered 134 External Tanks (ETs) for flight. Two additional tanks were built
Hardware for the Space Shuttle
Program was manufactured by a broad
but not scheduled to fly, and three assemblies were delivered for major tests, resulting
supplier base using a variety of
in a total of 139 tanks. As one of the world’s largest manufacturing plants, Michoud’s
processes. If these processes were not
main production building measured 17 hectares (43 acres) under one roof, including a controlled, a deterioration of the end
61-m (200-ft) vertical assembly building, and a port that permitted transportation of ETs product could have occurred, thereby
via oceangoing barges and towing vessels to Kennedy Space Center in Florida. increasing risk. In essence, NASA
depended on the process controls at
ETs were produced at Michoud by prime contractor Lockheed Martin (headquartered in
over 3,000 flight hardware suppliers’
Bethesda, Maryland) over a 37-year period. The contractor procured parts and materials
facilities across the United States.
from hundreds of subcontractors across the country. In full production, 12 tanks were Any subtle changes or deviations
in various phases of production across the facility—each tank requiring approximately from any established processes could
3 years to complete. Each ET included over 0.8 km (0.5 miles) of welds, thousands of have negatively affected the outcome.
rivets and bolts, redundant inspections within each process, and sophisticated pressure
Think of the thousands of vendors and
and electrical testing.
processes that might have affected
Throughout the history of the program, Michoud continually improved the processing, manufacturing—from material pedigree
materials, and components of ETs. Improvements included the introduction of a to the material of gloves worn by a
technician. All of these nuances
stronger, lighter aluminum-lithium alloy—which saved over 2.7 metric tons (3 tons) of
affected the outcome of the product.
weight—and transitioning to virtually defect-free friction stir welding. Additionally,
Coordination and communication
Michoud developed thermal protection foam spray systems and process controls that
between NASA and its manufacturers
reduced weight and minimized foam loss during the extreme environments of flight. were critical in this complicated web of
hardware suppliers. The Space Shuttle
was only as strong as its weakest link.
Strong process controls resulted in
highly predictable processes. Built-in
tests were critical because many flight
components/systems could not be
tested prior to their actual use in flight.
For example, Thermal Protection
Liquid oxygen tank. Liquid oxygen tank and intertank in a
Systems, pyrotechnics, and solid rocket
checkout cell. motors could only be tested at the
manufacturer’s facilities before they
were installed aboard the shuttle.
This fact demonstrated once again
that NASA was highly dependent on
the integrity of its hardware suppliers
to follow the tried and true “recipe”
of requirements, materials, people,
and processes to yield predictable and
reliable components.
Liquid hydrogen tank showing slosh and External Tank processing.
vortex baffle inside.
The communication and establishment n Be personally accountable and n establishing reliable processes
of specific best practices as standards perform to written procedures. n monitoring processes
helped the program improve safety and n Promote process control awareness. n reinforcing the process-control
reliability over the years. The following
n Identify and evaluate changes to philosophy or “culture”
standards were the minimum process
equipment and environment. n maintaining healthy systems
control requirements for all contractors
within the Space Shuttle Program: n Capture and maintain process
Establishing reliable processes included
knowledge and skills.
n Detect and eliminate process open communications (during and after
variability and uncoordinated changes. NASA witnessed a significant the design process) among numerous
n Eliminate creep—or changes that evolution in their overall process review boards and change boards
occur over time—through process control measures during the shuttle whose decisions dictated process-
controls and audits. period. This lengthy evolution of control measures. Monitoring processes
process control, a continuous effort involved postflight inspections, safety
n Understand and reduce process risks.
on the part of both NASA and management systems, chemical
n Identify key design and manufacturing its contractors, included multiple fingerprinting, witness panels, and
characteristics and share lessons initiatives such as: other monitoring procedures. Process
learned that relate to the processes.
Through its research, the team attributed the large vulture population to an abundant
food source—carrion (road kill). A large educational awareness effort was put into
place for the KSC workforce and local visitors. This effort included determining
wildlife crossing hot spots, ensuring the placement of appropriate signage on the
roadways to increase traveler awareness, and timely disposal of the carrion.
NASA added new radar and video imaging systems to electronically monitor and
track birds at the pads. Already proven effective, the avian radar—known as
Aircraft Birdstrike Avoidance Radar—provided horizontal and vertical scanning
and could monitor either launch pad for the movement of vultures. If data relayed
from the avian radar indicated large birds were dangerously close to the vehicle,
controllers could hold the countdown.
Endeavour, STS-100 (2001), roars into space,
startling a flock of birds.
In addition to the energy-saving of the five chiller motors, thus allowing KSC with electricity since 2009. The
benefits of the projects, NASA was also the motors to be started from the opening of the 10-megawatt solar field
able to modernize KSC infrastructure generator plant and providing a true made Florida the second-largest solar-
and improve facility capability. As an backup capability for the Launch power-producing state in the country.
example, when the Vertical Assembly Complex 39 area.
Building transfer aisle lighting was
In yet another partnership with Florida Summary
redesigned, better local control and
Power & Light Company, KSC opened
energy saving fixtures were provided. Throughout the shuttle era, NASA
a 10-megawatt solar power plant on
At the same time, this increased light was a conscientious steward of not
24 hectares (60 acres) of old citrus
levels and color rendering capability. only the taxpayer’s dollars but also of
groves. This plant could generate
As another example, although KSC had nature and the environment. Not only
enough electricity for more than
a 10-megawatt emergency generator was the space agency aware of the
1,000 homes and reduce annual carbon
plant capable of servicing critical loads dangers that wildlife could pose to
dioxide emissions by more than
in a power outage, this same plant the shuttle, it was also aware of the
227,000 tons. Florida Power & Light
could not start the chillers needed for dangers that humans pose to the
Company estimated that the 35,000
cooling these systems. As such, the environment and all its inhabitants.
highly efficient photovoltaic panels
backup plant was unable to sustain As NASA moves forward, the agency
were 50% more efficient than
these loads for more than a few minutes continues to take proactive steps to
conventional solar panels. This solar
before overheating conditions began. assure a safe and efficient coexistence.
power plant, in addition to the
Soft start drives were installed on two
1-megawatt plant, has been supplying
Astronaut Health
and Performance
Microgravity Research
in the Space Shuttle Era
Space Environments
While Hubble has become the people’s telescope due its public and
media impact, all the Great Observatories made enormous science
contributions including: new wave bands; high-resolution, high-sensitivity
observations; and a sharper, deeper look into distant galaxies.
Dark energy: Dark energy is inferred from observations of gravitational interactions The Launch of Hubble—
between astronomical objects and is not directly observed. It permeates space and exerts First Results
a negative pressure.
On April 24, 1990, Hubble was launched
Dark matter: Physicists infer the existence of dark matter from gravitational effects into orbit with Space Shuttle Discovery
on visible matter, such as stars and galaxies. It is a form of matter particle that does not (STS-31). The shuttle carried five
reflect or emit electromagnetic radiation. instruments: the Wide Field Planetary
Camera; the Goddard High Resolution
Galaxy: A collection of stars, gas, and dust bound together by gravity. The largest Spectrograph; the Faint Object Camera;
galaxies have thousands of billions of stars. the Faint Object Spectrograph; and the
Light-year: The distance that light travels in a vacuum in 1 year, approximately High Speed Photometer.
9.46 trillion km (5.88 trillion miles). During the years of advocacy for the
telescope and the subsequent detailed
Nebula: A diffuse mass of interstellar dust or gas or both, visible as luminous patches
design period, astronomers described
or areas of darkness depending on the way the mass absorbs or reflects incident radiation.
some of the amazing results that would
Planetary nebulae: A nebula, such as the Ring Nebula, consisting of a hot, be forthcoming from Hubble; however,
blue-white central star surrounded by an envelope of expanding gas. the much-anticipated first images
showed, quite clearly, that something
Quasars: Celestial objects that emit extremely high levels of electromagnetic radiation
was amiss with the telescope.
(including light). The amount of energy emitted by a quasar is higher than even the brightest
stars. The closest known quasar is 780 million light-years away. Despite their disenchantment,
astronomers worked hard to understand
Supermassive black hole: A gigantic black hole, with a mass ranging from millions and model the Hubble images, and
up to billions of times the mass of our sun, residing at the core of almost every galaxy. interesting research was accomplished
Supernova: The explosive death of a massive star whose energy output causes nonetheless. In the first year, the
its expanding gases to glow brightly for weeks or months. A supernova remnant is the campaign to characterize the nature
glowing, expanding gaseous remains of a supernova explosion.
of black holes in the universe was
initiated with the confirmation that a
Wide Field Space Telescope Advanced Advanced Camera Wide Field Camera 3
Planetary Camera 2 Imaging Computer for Surveys
Cosmic Origins
Spectrograph
Corrective Optics Gyros Near Infrared Spectrograph
Space Telescope Near Infrared Camera Camera and
Fine Guidance Space Telescope
Axial Replacement and Multi-Object Multi-Object
Sensor Imaging
Spectrometer Spectrometer
Gyros Spectrograph Repair
Cooling System
Fine Guidance
Solar Arrays Advanced Camera
Sensor Power Control Unit
for Surveys Repair
Solid State Recorder Solar Arrays
Science Instrument
Command and Data
Handling Unit
Gyros
New Outer Blanket
Layer
Soft Capture
Mechanism
Batteries
Fine Guidance
Sensor
April December February December March May
1990 1993 1997 1999 2002 2009
supermassive black hole with mass Servicing Mission 1 the Hubble program depended on the
about 2.6 billion times the mass of the astronauts’ success, and the Space
sun resides in the center of the giant To correct for the telescope’s optical Shuttle Program hung in the balance
elliptical galaxy M87. This result was flaw, Hubble scientists and engineers as well as the future of the agency.
based on Wide Field Planetary Camera designed and fabricated a new The struggle to keep the first repair
and Faint Object Camera imagery and instrument, the Wide Field Planetary mission funded was a day-by-day battle
Faint Object Spectrograph spectroscopy. Camera 2, and another device called that served to cement the cooperation
In addition to that scientific result, Corrective Optics for Space Telescope between NASA and the university
optical counterparts of radio jets in Axial Replacement, the latter intended research community.
galaxies were resolved, spectroscopic to correct the instruments already
on board. The first Hubble servicing As the first images came into
observations helped to disentangle the
mission (STS-61 [1993]) was the focus, overjoyed researchers and
nature of intergalactic clouds absorbing
ambitious shuttle flight to install the engineers began to gain confidence
light from near and far galactic systems,
corrective optics and resolve other that the promise of Hubble could
and the monitoring of surface features
spacecraft problems. It was a critical now be realized.
of solar system planets was initiated.
mission for NASA. The future of
Galaxy Development
Galaxy Clusters
Solar System
Hubble has not been idle in contributing
to the understanding of our solar system
objects. The first spectacular solar
system observation was that of the 1994
Methane in the planet’s crash of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 into
atmosphere absorbs starlight.
Jupiter. Subsequently, Mars is and has
been actively researched with Hubble.
Wide Field Planetary Camera 2, Near
Infrared Camera and Multi-Object
Spectrometer, Space Telescope Imaging
Spectrograph, and Advanced Camera for
Surveys have all monitored weather
conditions, observed seasonal changes,
mapped the polar caps, watched dust
An illustration of the spectrum obtained from an extrasolar planet and the configuration of the parent storms, and conducted remote “site
star, the planet, and Hubble to obtain the observation.
surveys” of landing spots for Martian
probes. In the Advanced Camera for
In 2001, Hubble observed the first Jupiter-sized planet in a tight, 3½-day Surveys image of the sharpest Earth-
transit of an extrasolar planet across orbit around it. The extremely close based image ever taken of Mars, small
the disk of its parent star. The yellow orbit causes the planet to lose its craters and other surface markings only
dwarf star HD 209458 has a atmosphere; i.e., the atmosphere is about a few tens of kilometers (a dozen
blowing off its surface into space.
It is the planet plus the atmospheric
material that caused a slight dip in the
brightness of the star that could be
observed with precise observations.
In 2007, Hubble actually detected the
atmosphere of an extrasolar planet, a
new achievement in planetary research.
The light from the star passed through
the atmosphere of the planet and was
detected by Hubble’s Near Infrared
Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer.
The atmosphere contains methane,
carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, An Advanced Camera for Surveys image of Mars
and water molecules. This exciting exhibiting the sharpest view ever taken from
observation was an important Earth. In view are numerous craters, several
Scientists reported the first-ever optical large volcanoes of the great Tharsis plateau
achievement because it demonstrated along the upper left limb, and a large multi-ring
detection of an extrasolar planet, which passed
in front of a huge star in the constellation
that prebiotic materials are present in impact basin, called Argyre, near image center.
Pegasus. This transit dimmed the light of the star There is a reddish tinge over the southern ice
by a measurable 1.7%. This shows the capability cap suggesting dust contamination in the clouds
of Hubble to detect extrasolar planets. or the ground ice.
“Some fun facts about Chandra: the observatory can focus so sky shortly after midnight. Well, this was no ordinary launch!
well it could read a newspaper at half a mile. If the surface Five seconds after liftoff, we saw a ‘Fuel Cell pH’ message,
of the Earth was as smooth as Chandra’s mirrors, the highest received a call from Houston about an electrical short, which
mountain would be no greater than 1.8 m (6 ft) tall. took out two main engine controllers! Unbeknownst to us,
there was a second problem: at start-up, a pin had popped
“STS-93 was a dream mission for me. Not only did I have
loose from a main engine injector plate. It hit several cooling
an opportunity to command a shuttle mission, I could marry
tubes, causing us to leak hydrogen. Due to the shuttle
it with a longtime hobby: astronomy. When I was a child in
redundancy and robustness of the main engines, they did
Upstate New York, I would look to the stars at night and feel
not fail. The shuttle fleet was grounded to conduct thorough
inspired and excited. I wanted to travel to each one of those
wiring inspections, resulting in many lessons learned for
points of light, know what was there, what were they made of.
aging spacecraft.
Were there people there?
“Despite the launch issues, I believe it was the right decision
“I moved to Oklahoma for US Air Force pilot training. The wide
to launch Chandra on the shuttle vs. an expendable
open, dark, clear skies encouraged me to buy my first
launch vehicle. The mission reaped the benefits of a human
telescope. I bought books and magazines on astronomy and
presence. True, a shuttle launch is more costly, but it is similar
spent most of my spare time reading! Many shuttle astronauts
to buying insurance for missions with irreplaceable payloads.
came to Vance Air Force Base for training. This combination
of exposure to the night skies and the emerging Space Shuttle “Today, the Chandra X-ray Observatory is increasing our
Program inspired me to plan my career around my eventual understanding of the origin, evolution, and destiny of the
application to the astronaut program! universe. It is an incredible product of human ingenuity.
The data will be around for generations of worldwide
“After over a year of training for STS-93 and several
scientists to digest as we discover our place in the universe.
unexpected launch delays, my crew headed to the launch pad
I see Chandra as an expression of our curiosity as humans.
on July 20, 1999, which coincided with the 30th anniversary
As we search to discover what makes up this wondrous
of Apollo 11. Our launch was manually halted at T minus
universe we live in, creations like Chandra will be far and
8 seconds by a sharp engineer who saw the ‘hydrogen spike’
away worth the investment we put into them. Chandra is one
in the aft compartment. A sensor had failed, and we were
of the successful, productive, and mighty success stories of
subsequently cleared to launch again in 2 days. After a single
the Space Shuttle Program!”
weather scrub, we rescheduled for the 23rd and lit up the
The shuttle’s low-light-level payload bay video imaging led to the discovery of
upper-atmosphere phenomena of transient luminous events of electrical storms
called “Elves.” NASA pointed the first laser to the Earth’s atmosphere from the
shuttle for the purpose of probing the particulate composition of our air.
The agency used the shuttle’s many capabilities to image Earth’s surface and
chronicle the rapidly changing land uses and their impact on our ecosystems.
Some examples of multiple roles of the Space Shuttle: orbiting laboratory, engineering test bed, Earth imaging, and launch platform for several
major Earth-observing systems.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellite carries an ozone instrument
similar to the one that flew in the shuttle payload bay. The shuttle-based instrument was carefully
calibrated at Goddard Space Flight Center. The shuttle’s orbital path and satellite flight pass overlapped
over the same Earth location within a 1-hour window during which the measurements took place and
were later analyzed by scientists.
Light scattered from the limb of the Earth is measured to determine how ozone varies with the altitude.
An ozone limb scatter instrument designed on the basis of successful Shuttle Ozone Limb Sounding
Experiment measurements will be included in the uncrewed National Polar-orbiting Operational
Environmental Satellite System. This interagency satellite system will monitor global environmental
conditions and collect and disseminate data related to weather, atmosphere, oceans, land, and
near-space environment.
Over 30% of the dust particles that electrical phenomena generated as a result of enormous thunderstorms, and are
pass over the Mediterranean Sea categorized into Sprites and Elves.
are coated with sulfate or sea salt.
These particles play a crucial role in Sprites are jellyfish-shaped, red, large, weak flashes of light reaching up to 80 km
the development of clouds and (50 miles) above the cloud tops. They last only a few tens of microseconds. Seen at
precipitation as they often act as night, Sprites can be imaged by cameras and only rarely seen by human eyes.
giant cloud condensation nuclei and
enhance the development of rain. Elves are disk-shaped regions of glowing light that can expand rapidly to large
On January 28, 2003, a dust storm distances up to 483 km (300 miles) across. They last fewer than thousandths
that interacted with a cold front, which of a second. Space Shuttle low-light video cameras were the first to record the
produced heavy rain and flooding,
occurrence of Elves.
was studied during this experiment.
This is an example of how dust
Record-setting Measurements from Columbia (STS-107 [2003])
aerosols influence the local climate.
The experiment succeeded in a spectacular fashion as almost all data on Sprites and
Elves were saved, thereby yielding the first calibrated measurements of their spectral
Observing Transient
Luminous Events luminosity, first detection of Sprite emission in the near-infrared, and clear indication
for the generation of Elves by intra-cloud lightning flashes. The global observations
In addition to measuring the dust
of transient luminous events enabled calculation of their global occurrence rate.
particle distribution, the other major
objective of the Israeli Dust Experiment These shuttle-based results are considered a benchmark for satellite observations.
was to use the same instruments at night
to study electrical phenomena in the Elves over the South Pacific Sprites over Southeast Australia
atmosphere. Scientists have known that
large thunderstorms produce these Elve ~80 km
Sprites
(over Australia)
electrical phenomena called “transient (over South Pacific) (50 miles)
Clouds
Dust Particles
Atlas
Mountain
Range
Lidar data during STS-64 (1994) depict widespread transport of dust aerosols over the African Sahara. The Atlas Mountain range appears to separate a more
optically thick aerosol air mass to the Southeast from a relatively cleaner air mass to the Northwest. Over the desert interior, the aerosol plume extends in
altitude to about 5 km (3 miles) with complex aerosol structures embedded within the mixed layer.
This image of Kuwait and the Persian Gulf was taken from STS-37 (1991) after oil wells were set on
fire by Iraqi forces in February 1991. Black smoke plumes are prominently seen. Kuwait City is
located on the south side of Kuwait Bay.
Africa
Lake
Chad
North
Astronauts photographed many sites Cameroon. Once the size of Lake Erie in experts confirm that less than 25% of the
of ecological importance from their the United States some 40 years ago, the water remains in the southern basin.
missions over the 30 years of the Space shrinking of this lake was recorded on
What has caused the shrinking of this
Shuttle Program. These images yielded shuttle Earth imagery. First photographed
life-supporting source of water for millions
unprecedented insights into the changes by Apollo 7 astronauts in 1968—when the
of people in Central Africa? Researchers
occurring on Earth’s surface. lake was at its peak—the decline in water
point to a combination of factors—natural
levels is clearly seen from a small sampling
One such site repeatedly imaged by shuttle climatic changes ushering in drier climate,
of time series from shuttle flights in 1982,
crews was Lake Chad. This vast, shallow, deforestation, aquatic weed proliferation,
1992, and 2000. While estimates of
freshwater lake in Central Africa straddles overgrazing in the region, and water use
decline vary due to seasonal fluctuations,
the borders of Chad, Niger, Nigeria, and for agriculture and other irrigation projects.
shuttle mission offered a window to Making Astronauts “Earth Smart” target site areas. The sites included
planet Earth in addition to whatever major deltas in South and East Asia,
Shuttle astronauts were trained in
else the mission involved. coral reefs, major cities, smog over
scientific observation of geological,
industrial regions, areas that typically
Astronauts have used handheld oceanographic, environmental, and
experience floods or droughts
cameras to photograph the Earth meteorological phenomena as well as
triggered by El Niño cycles, alpine
since the dawn of human spaceflight in the use of photographic equipment
glaciers, long-term ecological
programs. Beginning with the and techniques. Scientists on the ground
research sites, tectonic structures,
Mercury missions in the early 1960s, selected and periodically updated a
and features on Earth––such as
astronauts have taken more than series of areas to be photographed as
impact craters––that are analogous
800,000 photographs of Earth. During part of the crew Earth observations.
to structures on Mars.
the Space Shuttle Program, astronauts Flight notes were routinely sent to
captured over 400,000 images using the shuttle crew members, listing the
handheld cameras alone. best opportunities for photographing
A mighty volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 and a large earthquake altered the landscape of this serene region in a blink of an eye.
Landslides and rivers of rocks rushed downhill, causing havoc. Volcanic ash traveled more than 322 km (200 miles). This shuttle image from STS-64
(1994) captures the impact of these dynamic events in the US Pacific Northwest.
“The Space Shuttle played a significant role in the demonstration of space-based lidar to study aerosols
advancement of Earth System Science. It launched major and clouds, paved the way for the US-French Cloud-Aerosol
satellites that helped revolutionize our study of the Earth. Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation satellite.
Its on-board experiments provided discoveries and new Similarly, the Shuttle Ozone Limb Sounding Experiment and
climatologies never before available, such as the Limb Ozone Retrieval Experiment provided demonstrations
tropospheric carbon monoxide distributions measured of the experimental technique to be used by the Ozone
by the Measurement of Air Pollution from Satellite Mapping and Profiling Suite’s limb sensor aboard the
experiment, the stratospheric vertical profiles of many National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
halogen-containing species important in ozone depletion System Preparatory Project. The shuttle enabled international
measured by the Atmospheric Trace Molecule Spectroscopy cooperation, including the multinational Atmospheric
instrument, and the high-resolution surface topography Laboratory for Applications and Science payload that
measurements made by the Shuttle Radar Topography included instruments with principal investigators from
Mission. It provided for multiple flight opportunities for Germany, France, and Belgium among its six instruments,
highly calibrated instruments used to help verify results as well as deployment of the German Cryogenic Infrared
from operational and research satellites, most notably the Spectrometers & Telescopes for the Atmosphere-Shuttle
eight flights of the Shuttle Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet Palette Satellite. The shuttle provided launch capability
instrument. Shuttle flights provided for on-orbit for Earth Science-related experiments to the International
demonstration of techniques that helped pave the way Space Station, such as the launch of the French Solar
for subsequent instruments and satellites. For example, Spectrum Measurement instrument. Finally, the shuttle
the Lidar In-space Technology Experiment, with its provided outstanding education and outreach opportunities.”
Summary component of the agency’s missions into space to get a glimpse of our planet
for understanding and protecting from a new perspective and rediscover
our home planet. In the end, Space our own home.
The Space Shuttle played a significant
Shuttle missions for Earth observations
role in NASA’s missions to study,
were not only about science or
understand, and monitor Earth system
instruments or images—these missions
processes. The shuttle was an integral
were also about humanity’s journey
Earth Mapping k
Lin
D ata
The First Mission ital
Dig
Station
[9-in.]) system with an antenna capable
of acquiring imagery at a fixed angle
and a data recorder that used optical
film. Shuttle Imaging Radar-A worked
perfectly, and the radar acquired images
covering approximately 10 million km2
(4 million miles2) from regions with
surface covers ranging from tropical Space Shuttle’s track at the altitude of 215 km (134 miles) with changing radar antenna look angle
allowed the mapping of swaths up to 100 km (62 miles) wide.
Haiti: This pre-earthquake image clearly shows the Enriquillo fault that probably was responsible for the 7.0-magnitude earthquake on January 12, 2010.
The fault is visible as a prominent linear landform that forms a sharp diagonal line at the center of the image. The city of Port-au-Prince is immediately
to the left (North) at the mountain front and shoreline.
Results of Shuttle Radar Processing those data into digital and longitude and covering Earth’s
Topography Mission elevation maps took several years, entire landmass from the tip of
even while using the latest South America to the southern tip
The mission collected 12 terabytes supercomputers. Yet, the Shuttle of Greenland. The data were delivered
of raw data—about the same Radar Topography Mission eventually to both the National Geospatial
volume of information contained produced almost 15,000 data files, Agency and the Land Processes
in the US Library of Congress. each covering 1° by 1° of latitude Distributed Active Archive Center
Summary
The successful shuttle radar missions
demonstrated the capabilities of Earth
mapping and paved the way for the
Shuttle Radar Topography Mission.
This mission was bold and innovative,
and resulted in vast improvement by
acquiring a new topographic data set
for global mapping. It was an excellent
example of a mission that brought
together the best engineering and the
best science minds to provide uniform
accuracy elevation information for
users worldwide. This success has been
enshrined at the Smithsonian Air and
Space Museum’s Udvar-Hazy Center
in Virginia, where the radar mast and
outboard systems are displayed.
US: California’s San Andreas fault (1,200 km [800 miles]) is one of the longest faults in North America.
This view of a section of it was generated using a Shuttle Radar Topographic Mapping elevation
model and draped with a color satellite image. The view shows the fault as it cuts along the base of
Temblor Range near Bakersfield, California.
Cycle Ergometer
Shingles
Outbreak
Nerve damage
can cause
Dormant postherpetic
Varicella neuralgia.
Primary Disease Virus Stress on the
(Chicken Pox) immune system
allows the latent
virus to reactivate
Nerve Fiber
as shingles.
Reactivation
(Shingles)
On STS-90 (1998), three Space Shuttle Columbia crew members—Astronauts James Pawelczyk,
Richard Searfoss, and Richard Linnehan—meet on the middeck, where the crew ate, slept, performed
science, prepared for extravehicular activities (spacewalks), exercised, took care of personal hygiene
needs, and relaxed.
Without Constraints
On STS-73 (1995) Astronaut Kathryn Thornton
works at the Drop Physics Module on board
the Spacelab science module located in
the cargo bay of the Earth-orbiting shuttle.
Notice that Dr. Thornton is anchoring her body
by using a handrail for her feet and right hand.
This leaves only one free hand to accomplish
her tasks at that workstation and would
be an uncomfortable position to hold for a
long period of time.
With Constraints
Also on STS-73, Astronaut Catherine Coleman
uses the advanced lower body extremities
restraint at the Spacelab glove box.
With Dr. Coleman’s feet and knees anchored
for body stability, she has both hands free
to work for longer periods, providing her
stability and comfort.
Concentration (mg/m3)
Benzene
and even cancer. Ethylbenzene
0.15
Xylenes
NASA needed to be able to measure such compounds for the
0.1
International Space Station (ISS), a long-term closed living situation.
Therefore, in the latter 1990s, the shuttle was used as a test bed
0.05
for instruments considered for use on the ISS.
0
Shuttle flights provided the opportunity to assess the performance Pre-incident Post release Post release Normalized
62 minutes 296 minutes
of a volatile organic analyzer-risk mitigation experiment in 9/04/06 9/18/06 9/18/06 9/25/06
microgravity on STS-81 (1997) and STS-89 (1998). Results This chart plots the course of the
confirmed component function and improved the instrument built Elektron incident showing the
concentrations of toluene, benzene,
for ISS air monitoring. ethylbenzene, and xylenes—all
serious toxins—released into the
The volatile organic analyzer air. In 2004, the levels of the four
operated episodically on ISS contaminates were very low, as
measured by the volatile organic
since 2001 and provided analyzer and grab samples returned
timely and valuable to Earth for analysis. During the
incident, the analyzer measured
information during the
increases in the four compounds.
Elektron (Russian oxygen Grab samples confirmed the higher
generation system) incident in levels for these compounds and
verified that the analyzer had
September 2006 when the worked. The next available data
crew tried to restart the showed the contaminants had
returned to very low levels.
Elektron and saw what
appeared to be smoke
emanating from the device.
The volatile organic analyzer
collected and analyzed
samples prior to the event and During the STS-89 shuttle dock
with Russian space station Mir,
during cleanup. Data showed
Astronaut Bonnie Dunbar goes
that the event had started through her checklist to start
before the crew noticed the the volatile organic analyzer
sample acquisition sequence.
smoke, but the concentrations
of the contaminants released
were not a health hazard.
n Infectious diseases
n Toxin production
n Plant diseases
n Allergies
n Food spoilage
n Volatile release
n Material degradation
n Immune alteration
n Environmental
contamination
With the Space Shuttle and its crews, earthbound scientists had surrogates in
orbit—surrogates who could be their eyes and hands within a unique
laboratory. The addition of Spacelab and Spacehab, pressurized laboratory
modules located in the shuttle payload bay, brought crews and specialized
laboratory equipment together, thus enabling complex interactive biological
research during spaceflight. Crew members conducted state-of-the-art
experiments with a variety of species and, in the case of human research, served
as test subjects to provide in-flight measurements and physiological samples.
Astronaut Mark Lee working on the Frog Embryology Experiment in the General Purpose Work Station
during the STS-47 (1992) mission.
“After additional years of formal and informal education in Dr. Thornton is taking care of one of the two
squirrel monkeys on STS-51B.
medicine and biophysics, I used my training for research on
space motion sickness. For some 18 months during the first “Finally flying on Challenger, we were able to open the cage
shuttle flights, we completed human studies, which produced inspection ports. All was well except for the monkey who
an array of first-time procedures in the US space program, had been a laboratory favorite (this is the animal in the photo)
including evoked potentials, coordination, complex reaction but who was now in deep withdrawal. He didn’t eat or
time, gastrointestinal activity and pressure, ambulatory blood drink for 2 days and by the third day, dehydration was real.
pressure, and electrocardiograms, etc. These experiments I used some tricks learned while feeding wild pets and he
answered some urgent operational questions and provided took a banana pellet and another—and more and more,
points of departure for the more formal studies that followed. then cage food.
“Like so much of medical science, elemental knowledge “We returned with all animals alive and well and a great deal
of our nervous system comes from animal studies on Earth. of experience subsequently incorporated into the shuttle
On my first flight (STS-8 in 1983), 24 rats were flown in a legacy of astronauts and animals in space. Now, those of us
research animal holding facility. But, to fly animals for study who work with humans and space motion sickness have
in the small, enclosed environment of the shuttle is a such remarkable aid as the molecular and ultra-microscopic
complex challenge that required years of preparation. studies from animals in Neurolab, another shuttle legacy.”
Animal Development also provided insights into what changes in the structure of the fetal
might happen if humans experience balance organ—the vestibular system.
Studies with rodents aboard the Space
abnormal gravity levels during early On STS-90 (1998), rat pups were
Shuttle identified stages of early
development. Pregnant rats on STS-66 launched at 8 or 14 days postpartum.
mammalian development that are
(1994) and STS-70 (1995) showed After 16 days in microgravity, their
sensitive to altered gravity. They
that spaceflight resulted in striking sensorimotor functions were tested
Pine, Fir
Avian Frog, Newt Seedlings
STS-8
STS-41B
STS-51B
STS-51F
STS-61A
STS-29
STS-34
STS-32
STS-41
STS-40
STS-48
STS-42
STS-46
On both the STS-115 (2006) and the STS-123 (2008) shuttle missions, scientists
investigated the spaceflight response of Salmonella grown in various growth media
containing different concentrations of five critical ions. The effects of media ion
composition on the disease-causing potential of Salmonella were dramatic. Flight
cultures grown in media containing lower levels of the ions displayed a significant Astronaut Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper, in
increase in virulence as compared to ground control cultures, whereas flight the middeck of the Space Shuttle Atlantis,
activates the MICROBE experiment, which
cultures grown in higher ion levels did not show an increase in virulence. The wealth investigated changes to Salmonella virulence
of knowledge gained from these Salmonella gene expression and virulence studies after growth in space.
provides unique insight into both the prevention of infectious disease during a
spaceflight mission and the development of vaccines and therapeutics against
infectious agents on Earth.
STS-47
STS-52
STS-54
STS-56
STS-55
STS-57
STS-51
STS-58
STS-60
STS-62
STS-59
STS-65
STS-64
STS-68
STS-66
STS-63
STS-71
STS-70
STS-69
STS-72
STS-76
STS-77
STS-78
STS-80
STS-81
STS-85
STS-87
STS-89
STS-90
STS-95
STS-93
STS-106
STS-108
STS-110
STS-107
STS-121
STS-115
STS-118
STS-123
STS-126
STS-127
STS-129
STS-130
STS-131
STS-132
scientists and engineers were educated discovery, and the historic lunar
and trained. In the words of Nobel missions by the Apollo astronauts,
Prize-winner Baruch Blumberg, the Space Shuttle expanded the
“Like the pioneering voyages of the boundaries of biology, providing
early European explorers to the New insights into the role and influence
World, Darwin’s voyages of scientific of gravity on living systems.”
Colon
C Cancer Cell Cultures
Standar
Standardd Gr ound-based
Ground-based Space
Monolayer Bioreactor Cell
Bioreactor Bioreactor
Bioreactor
Cultur
Culture
re Cultur
Culture
re Cell Culture
Culture
No Three-dimensional
Tissue
2 mm
(0.8 in.)
>10 mm (0.4 in.)
The first experiment using living tissue in the space bioreactor developed at Johnson Space Center used human colon cancer cells to
determine whether there are specific advantages to propagation of cells in space. NASA conducted this experiment on STS-70 (1995)
and again on STS-85 (1997). The right panel shows the large tissue assemblies that readily formed within a few days in microgravity
when compared with the ground-based bioreactor analog, where the assemblies were much smaller and less well developed. For
reference, the left panel shows the same cells in standard culture on Earth, where the cells grew and attached to the petri dish in a
single layer with little evidence of tissue formation. This experiment set the stage for using space cell culture to produce tissues with
a greater parity to the actual tumor in situ in the patient. Furthermore, unlike the standard culture, it demonstrated the signature
biochemicals associated with the disease.
Cell Locomotion
Pre-experiment
Setup
A
Non-locomoting
Lymphocyte
Matrix
Cells
B
Locomoting
Lymphocyte
Locomotory
Distance
Leading Edge
Human immune cells (lymphocytes) locomote through tissue matrix (intercellular cement) as part of their normal function in mediating
immunity. Experiments performed in the analog culture system indicated a profound loss of the ability to locomote through matrix.
This experiment described above was performed on STS-54 (1993) and STS-56 (1993). The matrix material is gelled collagen cast in
two separate upper and lower phases, and the interface is loaded with human lymphocytes. Some were incubated as ground controls
and others were transported to the shuttle. Locomotion remained arrested throughout the preparation and transport to space by
maintaining them at 4°C (39°F). Upon arrival in microgravity, the temperature was raised to 37°C (99°F) in the experimental and control
specimens. The lower left control shows how the lymphocytes locomote symmetrically up and down. Distance of locomotion to the
leading edge can be measured using a microscope. In space, the experimental specimens evidenced very little locomotion.
Non-locomoting lymphocytes are round and incapable of deforming (photo A), whereas locomoting lymphocytes deform and extend the
process toward the direction of movement (photo B). The loss of locomotion in space indicates a potential defect in immunity in space.
Loss of locomotion for extended periods of time can profoundly impact immunity. Locomotion is essential to this trafficking of
lymphocytes through lymphoid organs and to sites of infection or invasion by cancer cells.
NASA performed experiments using human kidney cell 10,000 genes are up-regulated or down-regulated compared
cultures on STS-105 (2001) and STS-106 (2000) to investigate with the control, meaning that it is unlikely that terrestrial life
the gene expression response to microgravity and compare has a preformed, inherited set of genes used to adapt to
it to hypergravity and to an analog culture system on Earth. microgravity. The cells were then subjected to 3 gravitational
In a sample set (10,000 genes), the genes turned on and off force (g) using a centrifuge. The array is more compacted.
compared with the control in normal culture on Earth. If the Fewer than 70 genes are affected, suggesting that terrestrial life
expression is identical in control and experimental conditions, has a history of responding to hypergravity. The last panel
the dots line up on the diagonal line passing through the shows the same cells in response to microgravity analog cell
origin. Genes that are turned on are above and beyond the culture. More than 700 genes modified in response to the
first parallel diagonal line. Genes below and beyond the first analog system that rotates the cell culture, such that the cells
parallel diagonal are decreased in expression compared are falling continuously. Analysis indicated that it shared about
with the control. In microgravity, more than 1,600 of the 200 genes with that observed in microgravity.
Observations from early experiments system, durability, and conveniently pliable product when contrasted to
strongly suggested that the space observed characteristics of maturity native cartilage; and 3) showed that
environment may promote conditions and functionality. STS-79 (1996) flew on transplantation the less mature,
that favor engineering of normal a bioreactor containing beef cartilage more pliable space cartilage remodels
tissues for research and transplantation. cells to the Russian space station into the recipient site much better
Experiments in ground-based analog Mir. The culture set a landmark for than mature cartilage. The study
culture suggested that microgravity 137 consecutive days of culture suggests that microgravity and space
can facilitate engineering of functional in microgravity. Results from this technology are useful in developing
cartilage starting from individual cells. experiment and subsequent ground- strategies for engineering tissues from
(Cartilage is the tissue that forms the based research: 1) confirmed the utility a small number of cells.
joints between bones.) Cartilage of microgravity in tissue engineering;
tissue was chosen because of its low 2) showed that generation of cartilage
metabolic demand on the culture in microgravity produces a very
Hypogravity Hypergravity
Biological Response
The future of space cell biology includes a critical question regarding the relationship of gravity to various biological responses within
the systems of the human body as well as in microbes, plants, animals, and bioprocessing systems. The possible relationships are
depicted as lines on the graph, where values are known for the shuttle, space station, and Earth. The knowledge of the actual
relationship will enable better understanding of human adaptability on the moon (1/6 gravitational force [g]) and Mars (3/8g).
Furthermore, it will assist in the design of artificial g technologies. Knowledge of biologic responses on Earth reveals that the response
relationships to stimuli are sigmoid, as in the yellow and green curve, and that the range of the response is usually within one tenfold
increment of the normal physiologic state (Earth). Thus, the green relationship may be the most likely one. With this probability,
research on moon and Mars gravity becomes more important in exploration planning. Depending where on the “g” scale the s-shaped
part of the curve flexes, that is the amount of g that will begin to restore normal function.
consistent at the tissue, organ, and on cell-based research to investigate radiation, and environmental factors
whole-organism level to be useful in fundamental life process, diseases, and will come from cell studies conducted
developing treatments. Because we the effects of drugs and environment in space and in analog culture systems.
cannot perform experiments that may on life. Thus, part of our understanding
The answer to the last question may
be difficult or even unethical in of microgravity, hypogravity (such as
have the most impact on risk reduction
humans, biomedical researchers rely the level found on Mars or the moon),
for humans exploring space. The answer
Fundamental Physics
One of the great questions of physics
is the origin of long-range order in
systems of many interacting particles.
Imagine an astronaut tethered to the outside of the shuttle. The astronaut and the shuttle are in
orbit together. If the astronaut releases a tool, the tool generally goes into a slightly different orbit The concept of order among particles is
because it has to maintain a different speed to achieve the same orbit as the shuttle. The astronaut, a broad one—from simple measures of
shuttle, and tool are in orbit with their outward acceleration from the Earth, balanced by Earth’s order, such as the density of a collection
gravity. The slight differences in orbit make it seem, to the astronaut, that a small acceleration is of molecules or the net magnetization of
pushing the wrench away. This is microgravity.
the atomic nuclei in an iron bar, to
complex patterns formed by solidifying
you. With everything accelerating falling fast enough for air resistance to
alloys, turbulent fluids, or even people
toward Earth at precisely the same rate deform it, the absence of gravitationally
milling about on an urban sidewalk.
within this falling frame of reference, created hydrostatic pressure in the
In each of these systems, the “particles”
Earth’s gravity is not apparent. To an falling lead drop that allowed it to
involved interact nearly exclusively with
outside observer, gravity is still assume a spherical shape as the liquid
only their near neighbors; however, it’s
obvious—it’s the reason you’re in an was driven by thermodynamics into a
a common observation in nature that
orbit and not flying away from Earth in volume of minimum exposed surface.
systems composed of many interacting
a line to space. The falling shot quickly hardened as it
elements display ordering or coherent
cooled, and it collected in a water bath
structures over length scales much larger
at the bottom of the tower. The
Early Low-gravity Technology than the lengths describing the particles
shot-manufacturing industry relied on
or the forces that act between them.
The consequences of being weightless this early low-gravity technology until
The term for the distinctive large-scale
were merely hypothetical until the the first decade of the 20th century.
behavior that results from cooperatively
dawn of space travel, with one small interacting constituent particles is
exception: One hundred years prior to “emergent phenomena.” Emergent
Physics Environment in Space
the launch of the first rocket beyond phenomena are of interest to science
Earth’s atmosphere, spherical lead shot Spaceflight provides a good place to because they appear to be present at
was manufactured by allowing molten conduct experiments in physics— virtually every scale of the natural
lead to solidify in free fall inside a experiments that would not be possible world—from the microscopic to the
shot tower. As long as the shot wasn’t on Earth. Wernher von Braun (center
The source of engineering problems The shuttle enabled researchers to Boulder, examined the fluid-like
with liquids in space is the partially explore many new kinds of fluid behavior of loosely compressed soils
filled container, or the gas-liquid behavior. Two examples out of many and helped in understanding when
interface. Without gravity, surface include: the Mechanics of Granular and how, in situations like earthquakes,
tension—the force that pulls a liquid Materials experiment, and the soils abruptly lose their load-bearing
drop into a sphere—together with the Geophysical Fluid Flow Cell capability. Data from the experiment
attraction of the liquid to the solid experiment. The Mechanics of will also help engineers predict the
surfaces of the container determine Granular Materials experiment, performance of soils in future habitat
the shape that a liquid will assume in developed by Professor Stein Sture foundations and roads on the moon,
a partially filled container. at the University of Colorado, Mars, and other extraterrestrial
To understand the unique behavior of
liquids in space, researchers needed to
look at the critical pieces of information Fluid Behavior in a Propellant Tank
in the liquid boundaries. Fluid physics
experiments in the Spacelab Program,
such as the Surface Tension-Driven
Convection Experiment developed
for Professor Simon Ostrach of Case
Western Reserve University, Cleveland,
Ohio, and the Drop Physics Module
developed for Professors Robert
Apfel of Yale University, New Haven,
Connecticut, and Taylor Wang of
Vanderbilt University, Nashville,
Tennessee, led a wave of research
into the properties of liquid interfaces
and their roles in fluid motions.
This research contributed to advances
in other areas, such as microfluidics,
in which the properties of liquid Earth Environment Microgravity
interfaces are important.
One of the earliest concerns about fluid behavior in microgravity was the management of propellants
in spacecraft tanks as they orbited the Earth. On the ground, gravity pulls a fluid to a bottom of a
tank (Earth environment, left). In orbit, fluid behavior depends on surface tension, viscosity, wetting
effects with the container wall, and other factors. In some cases, a propellant can wet a tank and leave
large gas bubbles in the center (microgravity, right). Similar problems can affect much smaller
experiments using fluids in small spaces.
fire detectors in space need to be more produced in microgravity were often burning of fuel drops has been used by
sensitive to larger smoke particles than not detected by the sensor technology both General Electric (Fairfield,
do fire detectors on Earth. employed in detectors deployed on Connecticut) and Pratt & Whitney
the shuttle, even though the detectors (East Hartford, Connecticut) to improve
The experiments of David Urban of
worked reliably on Earth. An alternate the jet engines they manufacture.
the NASA Glenn Research Center
technology more sensitive to large Droplet combustion experiments in
and his colleagues, included on the
particulates provided superior space produced well-controlled data
US Microgravity Payload-3 mission
detection. This technology, which uses that allowed Williams and Dryer to
(1996), examined particulate-forming
scattering of a laser beam by particles validate a comprehensive model for
combustion in microgravity and
in the airstream, is now deployed liquid fuel combustion. This model
observed that the larger particulates
aboard the ISS. was integrated into the simulations that
engine manufacturers use to optimize
Combustion of Fuels for Power designs. Another experiment, led by
Paul Ronney of the University of
Beyond its initial motivation,
Southern California, Los Angeles,
combustion research on the shuttle also
used microgravity to study the weakest
helped scientists better understand the
flames ever created—100 times
basic processes of burning hydrocarbon
weaker than a birthday candle. Data
fuels that according to the US
on how combustion reactions behave
Department of Energy provide the
near the limits of flammability were
US economy with 85% of its energy.
used to help design efficient
Research by Forman Williams of the
hydrogen-burning engines that may
University of California, San Diego,
eventually meet the need for clean
and Fred Dryer of Princeton University,
transportation technologies.
New Jersey, and their students on the
In nearly perfect weightlessness, an ethanol
droplet on the Microgravity Science Laboratory-1
mission in 1997 burns with a spherical flame.
Growth of orbital debris: Each dot represents a debris object that is greater than 10 cm (4 in.) in diameter and has been cataloged. Comparison
of 1970 (left) and 2010 maps shows clear evidence of rapid growth in debris population over the past 40 years.
What is orbital debris? have origins in the solar system and (0.12 in.) and provides a basis for a
You have probably heard of human-made were generated from asteroids or comets, statistical estimate of its numbers. Orbital
“space junk” or “space debris pollution.” or left over from the birth of the solar debris 1 mm (0.04 in.) in diameter and
Since the dawn of space activities initiated system (i.e., they are natural debris). smaller is determined by examining
with the launch of Sputnik in 1957, many Micrometeoroids could pose a significant impact features on the surfaces of returned
nations have launched satellites, probes, threat to space missions. They can spacecraft, such as the Orbiter.
and spacecraft into space. Some of these impact at a higher velocity than orbital
How has the debris grown?
objects have come back to Earth and debris, and even the tiniest pieces can
Debris population in space has grown as
burned up in the atmosphere on re-entry. significantly damage spacecraft.
more and more space missions are
Many others remained in orbit and
How much orbital debris is launched. So, what are we doing about
disintegrated into pieces that circle the
present, and how is it monitored? orbital debris?
Earth at around 27,000 kph (17,000 mph)
Experts report more than 21,000 pieces of
in low-Earth orbit. This is orbital debris. In 1995, NASA became the world’s first
debris larger than 10 cm (4 in.) in diameter
It can be as small as a flake of paint from space agency to develop a comprehensive
in orbit around Earth. The number of debris
a spacecraft or as large as a school bus, set of guidelines for mitigation of orbital
particles between 1 cm (0.4 in.) and 10 cm
and can impact operational spacecraft at debris. Since then, other countries have
(4 in.) in diameter is estimated to be around
very high impact speeds (up to 55,000 kph joined in the effort. NASA is part of the
500,000. Experts think the number of
[34,000 mph). This space junk is of Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination
particles smaller than 1 cm (0.4 in.) in size
concern to all spacefaring nations. Committee consisting of 10 nations and
exceeds tens of millions.
the European Space Agency whose purpose
What is a micrometeoroid? The US Space Surveillance Network includes identifying cooperative activities
Micrometeoroids are common, small tracks large orbital debris (>10 cm [4 in.]) to mitigate orbital debris. This includes
pieces or fragments of rock or metal in routinely. It uses ground-based radars stimulation for engineering/research based
orbit about the sun. These fragments to observe objects as small as 3 mm on solutions.
“Our Space Shuttle experiences gave us a deep “Later in my career, as Commander of U.S. Strategic
appreciation and respect for the space environment—its Command, I saw this imperative for responsibility even
vastness, its harshness, and its natural beauty. Hand in more clearly in the aftermath of two significant
hand with this appreciation comes, in my view, a sense of debris-generating events: the January 2007 Chinese
stewardship for this domain we share, and will continue anti-satellite test, and the February 2009 collision between
to share, with other countries and peoples. It’s a realm over two satellites in low-Earth orbit. Both dramatically
which no one has ownership, but for which all who traverse increased the debris count in low orbit and were wake-up
it are, in a sense, responsible. calls for the imperative for more responsible behavior
in the first case, and the need to better understand and to
“This imperative for responsibility became particularly
minimize—to the extent possible—the challenge of space
poignant to me during one of my shuttle missions, when one
debris in the latter. We’ve since taken steps to improve
day a crewmate noticed a disconcerting crack in the outer
that understanding and to pursue debris mitigation, but
pane of the circular window on the side hatch. NASA scientists
there is still much more to be done.
and engineers later determined the crack was caused by the
high-speed impact of a miniscule piece of human-made debris. “If we truly are to be good stewards of the space
I’d prefer not to think what might have happened had it been environment, we will need to make every reasonable
something a bit larger. The event was a reminder to us that we effort to keep it habitable for both human and machine.
were, in our fragile craft, mere travelers in a rather hazardous This demands a deliberate effort to minimize orbital
place of great velocities and hostile conditions. But, our collision debris in the design, deployment, operation, and disposal
with this other human-made object in space also made clear of those spacecraft we send into orbit and beyond,
that we have a role in keeping the space environment as as well as proactive efforts to mitigate the likelihood
pristine as we can, and as we found it—if for nothing else, for of spacecraft collisions with debris or other satellites
the safety and freedom of space travels after ours. in the future.”
(e.g., wing leading edge and nose Summary Experience and knowledge gained
cap) along with repair were useful from the shuttle orbital debris
techniques pioneered by the Space Experts estimate that, collectively, monitoring is valuable for current
Shuttle Program to further mitigate these implemented steps diminished operations of the ISS and will have
the risk of micrometeoroid and the risk of damage from the significant value as NASA develps
orbital debris impacts. orbital debris and micrometeoroids future exploration concepts.
by a factor of 10 times or more.
Radiation
Radiation Intensity
Intensity Inside
Inside the the Shuttle
Shuttle
90
Radiation in low-Earth
orbit is influenced
60
by the magnetic field
and follows a complex
distribution pattern, as
30
seen from measurements
from STS-91 (1998).
The prominent bull’s-eye
Latitude
atitude
0
is a localized region of
trapped radiation known
L
-90
-180 -150 -120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Longitude
Longitude
0 24,000
nGy/min
Hubble
Shuttle
Average Shuttle
Average Mission
Maximum
Gemini Apollo
Rem
0 Mammogram Average Nuclear 1 Body Scan
Radiation Worker Maximum Terrestrial 2 cSv
Chest Background Plant Worker Quarterly Limit Background
X-ray Radiation (Houston)
Maximum Gemini
International Space Station
International NASA
Average 30-day
Shuttle Hubble Shuttle Limit
Mission
Apollo Shuttle-Mir Mission Skylab 4
Rem
0 Chest
Ch t Radiation
R di ti W Worker
orker
k
5 Radiation
R di ti n W
Worker
orker
k
Barium 10 15 20 25 cSv
Contrast
X-ray Quarterly Limit Annual Limit Fluor
Fluoroscopy
oscopy
Anatomy of a Large
Solar Energetic Particle Event
1. A collection of sunspots grows into an active region, intertwining magnetic fields.
C C
C
Space Radiation and the Shuttle Flying in Adverse Space Weather 1900 1950
Several shuttle flights flew during solar Space Shuttle Solar energetic particle Internal solar energetic particle
energetic particle events but were not flight event during a mission exposure during shuttle mission
affected. Clusters of single event particles Radiation Two solar energetic particle Extravehicular activity
correspond to solar maximum (1980, 1990, milestone events during a mission during solar energetic particle
2001) periods of intense solar activity or belt enhancement
Temporary trapped radiation
during the 11-year solar cycle. belt enhancement Shuttle-Mir internal solar
energetic particle exposure
F
1990 2000
Agencies Work Together to Assess Risks
The Space Weather Prediction Center forecast. The NASA radiation operations applies the National Weather Service
at the National Oceanographic and group monitored environmental trends forecast to the local area for the public to
Atmospheric Administration and the NASA as well and reviewed the daily forecast assess how the weather will impact its
Space Radiation Analysis Group worked with Space Weather Prediction Center planned activities. During dynamic
together to support Space Shuttle flights. personnel. The Space Radiation Analysis changes in the radiation environment,
Space Weather Prediction Center Group then interpreted the forecasted the radiation operations group tracked the
forecasters reviewed available solar and environmental trends and assessed progress of the event and advised the
environmental data to assess future potential impacts to the mission operations flight team when conditions warranted
environmental trends and provide a daily much in the way a local weather forecaster contingency procedures.
Galactic
Cosmic
Radiation
S
South Atlantic No Protection
Anomaly
(protons)
Solar Energetic
Particle Event
Spin Magnetic
Axis Axis
From strong protection at the equator to no protection at the poles, Earth’s magnetic field provided considerable radiation protection to the shuttle by
deflecting solar and galactic cosmic radiation. Usually, the shuttle was well protected; however, when the shuttle flew beyond 45 degrees latitude, there
was usually little or no magnetic protection. The magnetic field also defined the regions of trapped radiation.
A pair of curving, erupting solar prominences on June 28, 2000. Prominences are huge clouds of
relatively cool dense plasma suspended in the sun’s hot, thin corona.
enabling operational response planning. also fell below the quarterly terrestrial
Although the solar energetic particle exposure limits. During the course
magnitude cannot be predicted, the of the Space Shuttle Program, crew
time intervals of when the crew will be radiation exposures ranged from
subject to exposure can be quickly 0.008 rem (0.08 mSv) to 6 rem
determined. If the particle is large and (60 mSv). The 10-day, high-altitude
it is prudent for the crew to move to Hubble Space Telescope mission
higher shielded areas of the station, approached an exposure similar to an
shelter would be recommended. average 180-day mission to the ISS,
which was 8 rem (80 mSv).
Fortunately, the average exposure
to shuttle crews—around 0.5 rem In all, operational tools and procedures
(5 mSv)—was far lower than the to respond to space weather events
maximum exposure guideline of matured during the course of the Space
25 rem/month (250 mSv/month) and Shuttle Program and are being applied
to space station operations.
Educational
Legacies
In 1985, STS-51F—Center: Story Musgrave, MD, mission specialist, In 2010, STS-131 and International Space Station (ISS) Expedition 23—
medical doctor. To Musgrave’s right, and going clockwise: Anthony Clockwise from lower right: Stephanie Wilson, mission specialist,
England, PhD, mission specialist, geophysicist; Karl Henize, PhD, aerospace engineer; Tracy Caldwell Dyson, PhD, ISS Expedition 23
mission specialist, astronomer; Roy Bridges, pilot, US Air Force (USAF); flight engineer, chemist; Dorothy Metcalf-Lindenburger, mission
Loren Acton, PhD, industry payload specialist; John-David Bartoe, PhD, specialist, high school science teacher and coach; Naoko Yamazaki,
Navy payload specialist; Gordon Fullerton, commander, USAF. Japanese astronaut, aerospace engineer.
Switzerland
Germany
Belgium
Sweden
Ukraine
Canada
Mexico
France
Russia
Japan
Spain
Israel
Italy
They can be found in books, magazines, well-known photo, taken by the crew witness the launch and landing of the
calendars, catalogs, on television of STS-107 (2003), features the moon in shuttle, and also drove to California,
news broadcasts, and on numerous a haze of blue. where the shuttle sometimes landed.
non-NASA Web sites. They adorn the Kennedy Space Center’s Visitor
walls of offices and homes across Complex in Florida and the US Space
the world. One of the most famous Tourism and Rocket Center in Alabama welcome
images captures the historic spacewalk The Space Shuttle attracted vacationing millions of sightseers each year—people
of Astronaut Bruce McCandless in travelers from the beginning of the who hope to learn more about the
the Manned Maneuvering Unit set program. Tourists from across the nation’s human spaceflight program.
against the blackness of space. Another country and globe flocked to Florida to Visitors at Kennedy Space Center have
*SPACE COWBOYS © WV Films LLC. Licensed By: Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. All Rights Reserved.
© Gilbert Moore.
the project would be completed on time.
STS-108 (2001). NASA had flown a They worked diligently and followed
third satellite on an expendable launch instructions to the letter,” said their
vehicle mission, and a fourth satellite science teacher, Cheryl Dodes.
Students in the Young Astronauts/Astronomy
was manifested on a shuttle mission but
Club at Weber Middle School in Port Washington,
later cancelled following the Columbia New York, proudly display a set of mirrors
accident (STS-107 [2003]). A coalition destined for Starshine. Earth Knowledge Acquired by
of volunteer organizations and Middle School Students
individuals in the United States and measured the satellites’ right ascension
How does one inspire school students to
Canada built the satellites. Each satellite and declination by reference to known
pursue science and engineering? Imagine
was covered by approximately 1,000 stars, and they recorded the precise
creating an opportunity for students to
small front-surface aluminum mirrors timing of their observations through
participate in space operations during
that were machined by technology the use of stopwatches synchronized
real Space Shuttle flights.
students in Utah and polished by tens with Internet time signals. They used
of thousands of students in schools and global positioning satellite receivers or The brainchild of Dr. Sally Ride—
other participating organizations around US Geological Survey 7.5-minute first American woman in space—
the world. During the orbital lifetime quadrangle maps, or their equivalents in the Earth Knowledge Acquired by
of the satellites, faint sunlight flashes other countries, to measure the latitude, Middle School Students (EarthKAM)
from their student-polished mirrors longitude, and altitude of their education program, sponsored by
were visible to the naked eye during observing sites. They posted their NASA, gives students “hands-on”
certain morning and evening twilight observations and station locations on experience in space operations. During
periods. The student observers the Starshine Web site. the Space Shuttle Program, NASA’s
EarthKAM was the next best thing to
being on board for junior scientists.
The idea is as simple as it is elegant:
by installing a NASA camera on board
a spacecraft, middle school students
across the United States and abroad
had front-row seats on a space mission.
They used images to study Earth
science and other science disciplines
by examining river deltas, deforestation,
and agriculture. The hardware consisted
of an electronic still camera and a
laptop that was set up by an astronaut
and then operated remotely from the
ground with imaging requests coming
directly from the students.
While this hands-on, science-immersive
learning was cool for kids, the high-tech
appeal was based on proper science
Launching Starshine satellite from Endeavour’s payload bay during STS-108 (2001).
EarthKAM
EarthKAM EarthKAM
Operations Image Server at
Center Jet Propulsion
Johnson Space Center Laboratory
Mission Control Center
START FINISH
Student requests
Earth imagery.
Student receives
requested Earth
imagery.
Students on Earth obtained photos from orbit by using computers to request images of specific locations from the Earth Knowledge Acquired by
Middle School Students (EarthKAM) on the Space Shuttle.
methods. Students prepared a solid those instructions over the Internet to 17 countries have participated in the
research proposal outlining the topic University of California at San Diego program. This exciting adventure of
they wanted to study. The program operations unit. Undergraduate Earth exploration from space is a great
was similar to a time-share facility. volunteers wrote the code that instructed hit at schools all over the globe. While
Schools were to take a certain number the camera when to acquire imagery. youngsters can learn latitude, longitude,
of photographs. During the Space The students received their photo and geography from a textbook, when
Shuttle Program, students set up a images back through the Web site and their lesson comes first-hand from the
24-hour classroom Mission Control began analyzing their data. Space Shuttle, they really pay attention.
operation to track the shuttle’s orbit. “In 20 years of teaching,” says Sierra
Since its first launch in 1996, EarthKAM
By calculating latitude and longitude, Vista Middle School (California)
flew on six shuttle missions and now
they followed the shuttle’s route and teacher Mark Sontag, “EarthKAM is by
continues operations on the International
monitored weather conditions. After far the most valuable experience I’ve
Space Station. To date, more than
choosing photo targets, students relayed ever done with kids.”
73,000 students from 1,200 schools in
City of Bellflower, California, luncheon “Reaching for the Stars/Growing Together” honored teacher
Pam Leestma’s second- and third-grade students for their spaceflight learning activities.
Back row (left to right): Kaylin Townsend, Jerron Raye, Brendan Mire, Payton Kooi, and Rylee Winters.
Front row: Julianne Bassett and teacher Pam Leestma.
“But NASA was the first federal agency to start to turn that
around, by making a school teacher the first ‘citizen’
spaceflight participant. NASA selected a stellar representative taught lessons from orbit to school children around the world.
in New Hampshire social studies teacher Christa McAuliffe, I returned to teaching in Idaho, and continued working with
who showed what great teachers all over the country do. NASA, half-time, until I became an astronaut candidate in
I was fortunate to train as Christa’s backup. Barely a day 1998. I am proud that NASA later selected three more teachers
went by without NASA employees coming up to us to tell us to be educator astronauts. It marked the first time since the
about those teachers who had made a difference for them. scientist astronauts were selected for Apollo that NASA had
We felt that Teacher in Space was more than just a national made a major change in its astronaut selection criteria.
recognition of good teaching; it was also a display of gratitude
“So, certainly, the Space Shuttle Program has made a major
by hundreds of NASA employees.
impact on American education and on the way teachers are
“Thousands of teachers gathered their students to watch seen by the public. And this brings me back to that old
Christa launch on board Challenger. The tragic accident shook comment of ‘Those who can’t, teach.’ It reminds me of how, to
all of us to the core. But for me, the pain was partly salved pay tribute to those who went before, engineers and scientists
by what I saw in the reactions of many to the tragedy. are fond of quoting Sir Isaac Newton. He said, ‘I stand on the
Instead of defeatism and gloom, I heard many people say shoulders of giants.’ We teachers have a similar sense of
that they’d fly on the next Space Shuttle ‘in a heartbeat.’ tradition. We think of teachers who teach future teachers,
Others told me how Challenger had inspired them to take who then teach their students, who go on to change the world.
bold risks in their own lives—to go back to college or to go For example, Socrates taught Plato, who taught Aristotle, who
into teaching. Also, 112 Teacher in Space finalists made taught Alexander the Great. So I’d like to end this little letter
lasting contributions to aerospace education in this country. with a quote that far predates ‘Those who can’t, teach.’ Two
And the families of the Challenger crew created the millennia ago, in about 350 BC, Aristotle wrote, ‘Those who
superlative Challenger Center for Space Science Education. know, do. Those who understand, teach.’ Aristotle understood.
“After Challenger, NASA’s education program grew in many “I want to thank the Space Shuttle Program for helping
ways, including establishing the Teaching From Space office teachers teach. Explore, discover, learn, and share. It is what
within the Astronaut Office, and producing many astronaut- NASA and teachers do.”
The basic philosophy underlying the right then that I wanted to be an astronaut and I made it my life goal to follow
teaching approach is that the design my cough drops into space.
must be a system approach, and the
“As it turns out, cough drops are not at all affected by zero gravity or extreme
entire project must be considered
as a whole rather than the collection temperatures. The experiment itself didn’t bring back alien life forms or
of components and subsystems. magically transform our everyday home supplies into toxic space objects, but it
Furthermore, the life-cycle orientation wasn’t a complete waste. The simple experiment opened my eyes to the outside
addresses all phases of the system, world and the possibilities that exist within it. It captivated my interest and
encouraging innovative thinking from
held it for over 8 years, and the life goals I made way back then were the leading
the beginning.
factor in choosing Purdue University to study Aerospace Engineering.”
The use of large, complicated design
projects rather than smaller, more
easily completed ones forces students
to think of the entire system and use advanced techniques during the functions of a system, numerous
advanced engineering science 1970s. The emphasis on hierarchical interface and integrating problems,
techniques. This was based on the levels provides an appreciation for and how the design options are
fact that the shuttle itself had to use the relationship among the various essentially countless when one
Space Shuttle Program Active Flight Hardware Suppliers Distribution by State—12/30/00 to 12/30/04
A mixing tank used to produce the cleaning solvent for dissolving solid rocket propellant at Kyzen
Corporation. This solvent was free of ozone-depleting chemicals.
The Mobile Launch Platform transported the shuttle to the launch pad. Inset photo shows the dispenser
that injects the lubricant on the pins, which are necessary for the treadbelt.
President George H.W. Bush The editor in chief of this publication invited some noted leaders from
the government and industry, educators, students, and others to share
Pam Leestma and Neme Alperstein their views and thoughts on these questions. Each contributor provided
Elementary school teachers
his or her own unique perspective. The editors are pleased and grateful
Norman Augustine for their contribution.
Former president and CEO of
Lockheed Martin Corporation
John Logsdon
Former director of Space Policy Institute
The George Washington University
Leah Jamieson
Dean of the College of Engineering
Purdue University
Michael Griffin
Former NASA administrator
Neil Armstrong’s “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” changed
the course of history in our quest to explore space. “Failure is not an option” was the
Apollo Program’s vision to inspire the nation and is the space agency’s legacy for
the next generation.
Today we are a global community with international space partners exploring a new
frontier filled with imagination and innovation. Scientific discoveries, human spaceflight,
space tourism, moon colonies, and the exploration of Mars and beyond will be the
vehicles that will continue to find common ground for transcending borders through
understanding, respect, friendship, and peace.
NASA’s education programs have provided the powerful resources to engage young
minds. Their essential 21st century tools have brought our youth closer to those on the
frontier of exploration through numerous multimedia interactive technologies. Some
ways that we, as educators, have been able to get our students “up close and personal”
with NASA include speaking with an astronaut aboard the International Space Station in
real time (a downlink), using the facilities of a local California city hall and a New York
City community center for a NASA first coast-to-coast downlink, videoconferencing
with NASA’s Digital Learning Network experts and astronauts living and training
under water off the Florida coast (NASA’s Extreme Environment Missions Operations),
growing basil seeds flown in space with astronaut and educator Barbara Morgan,
participating in NASA’s live webcasts, watching NASA TV during coverage of Space
Shuttle launches and landings, and organizing stargazing family nights for the school
community. The impact of these extraordinary experiences has been life changing.
The unimaginable has become the world of infinite possibilities in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. Human spaceflight missions reflect the diversity of
our global community and the best that such collaboration offers mankind. This diversity
reaches out to all students who see increased opportunities for participation. They see
the potential to create the next generation of “spinoffs” that will improve daily life
© 2009, Pam Leestma and Neme Alperstein. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owners. All rights reserved.
Parachuting an instrument package onto the summit of Mt. Everest would, without question,
have been a significant and exciting scientific contribution. But would it have had the broad
impact of Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay standing atop the 29,035 ft peak?
There are many important missions that can and should be accomplished with robotic
spacecraft, but when it comes to inspiring a nation, motivating young would-be scientists and
engineers and adaptively exploring new frontiers, there is nothing like a human presence.
But humans best serve a nation’s space goals when employed not as truck drivers but rather
when they have the opportunity to exploit that marvelous human trait: flexibility. A prime
example is the on-orbit repair of the Hubble Space Telescope using the shuttle. Without that
capability for in situ human intervention, Hubble, itself a monumental accomplishment,
would have been judged a failure. Indeed, there are important missions for both humans and
robots in space—but each is at its best when it does not try to invade the other’s territory.
So what is next for human spaceflight? There is a whole spectrum of interesting possibilities
that range from exploring Mars, Demos, or Phoebus, to establishing a station on the moon
or at a neutral gravity point. It would seem that the 1990 recommendations of the White
House/NASA commission on the Future of the U.S. Space Program still make a lot of sense.
These include designating Mars as the primary long-term objective of the human space
program, most likely with the moon as a scientific base and stepping-off point, and getting
on with developing a new heavy-lift launch capability (probably based on the shuttle’s
External Tank).
The cost of space transportation was, and is today, the most intransigent impediment to human
space travel. The mission traffic models are sparse; the development costs large; the hazard of
infant mortality of new vehicles daunting; and the arithmetic of discounted cost accounting
and amortization intimidating. Thus, at least in my opinion, the true breakthrough in human
spaceflight will occur only when space tourism becomes a reality. Yes, space tourism. There
is a close parallel to the circumstance when World War II solved the chicken and egg problem
of commercial air travel.
By space tourism I do not refer to a few wealthy individuals experiencing a few moments
of exposure to high altitudes and zero g’s. Rather, I mean a day or two on orbit for large
numbers of people, peering through telescopes, taking photographs, eating, and exercising.
There are, of course, those who would dismiss any such notion as fantasy—but what might
the Wright Brothers have said if told that within the century the entire population of Houston
would each day climb aboard an airplane somewhere in the US and complain that they had
already seen the movie? Or Scott and Amundsen if informed that 14,000 people would visit
© 2009, Norman Augustine. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. All rights reserved.
The Space Shuttle has been a remarkable machine. It has demonstrated the many benefits
of operations in low-Earth orbit, most notably the ability to carry large pieces of equipment
into space and assemble them into the International Space Station (ISS). Past research
aboard the shuttle and especially future research on the ISS could have significant benefits
for people on Earth. But research in low-Earth orbit is not exploration. In my view, it is past
time for humans once again to leave low-Earth orbit and restart exploration of the moon,
Mars, and beyond. President George W. Bush’s January 2004 call for a return to the moon
and then a journey to Mars and other deep space destinations is the policy that should guide
US government human spaceflight activities in the years to come.
The 2004 exploration policy announced by President Bush also called for international
participation in the US exploration initiative. The experience of the ISS shows the
value of international partnerships in large-scale space undertakings. While the specifics
of the ISS partnership are probably not appropriate for an open-ended exploration
partnership, the spirit and experience of 16 countries working together for many years
and through difficult challenges certainly is a positive harbinger of how future space
exploration activities can be organized.
Since 2006, 14 national space agencies have been working together to chart that future.
While the United States is so far the only country formally committed to human
exploration, other space agencies are working hard to convince their governments to
follow the US lead and join with the United States in a multinational exploration effort.
One product of the cooperation to date is a “Global Exploration Strategy” document that
was approved by all 14 agency heads and issued in May 2007. That document reflects
on the current situation with words that I resonate with: “Opportunities like this come
rarely. The human migration into space is still in its infancy. For the most part, we have
remained just a few kilometers above the Earth’s surface—not much more than camping
out in the backyard.”
It is indeed time to go beyond the “camping out” phase of human space activity, which
has kept us in low-Earth orbit for 35 years. Certainly the United States should capitalize on
its large investment in the ISS and carry out a broadly based program of research on this
orbiting laboratory. But I agree with the conclusions of a recent White Paper prepared by
© 2009, John Logsdon. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. All rights reserved.
The Space Transportation System; a.k.a. the “Space Shuttle”; is the vehicle that arguably
brought Canada to maturity as a global space power. Canada was an early advocate in
recognizing the importance that space could play in building the country. Initially, this was
achieved through the development of small indigenous scientific satellites to study the Earth’s
upper atmosphere, beginning with Alouette, launched by NASA in 1962, which positioned
Canada as the third nation, after the Soviet Union and the United States of America, to have
its own satellite successfully operate in the harsh and largely unknown environment of space.
The follow-on Alouette-II and ISIS series of satellites (1965 to 1971) built national
competence and expertise and set the foundation for Canada’s major contributions to the
rapidly developing field of satellite communications (Anik series and Hermes), to using
Earth Observation data to meet national needs, as well as to the development of signature
technologies that were the basis of Canada’s space industry (e.g., STEM* deployable systems,
antennas). By the mid-1970s, however, Canada’s emerging space program was at a
crossroads: space communications were becoming commercialized, Canada was not yet
ready to commit to the development of an Earth Observation Satellite, and no new scientific
satellites or payloads were approved. This situation changed dramatically in 1974 when the
Government of Canada approved the development of a robotic arm as a contribution to the
Space Shuttle Program initiated by NASA two years earlier. This Shuttle Remote Manipulator
System was designed to deploy and retrieve satellites from and to the Shuttle orbiter’s payload
bay, as well as support and move extra-vehicular astronauts and payloads within the payload
bay. The first “Canadarm” was paid for by Canada and first flew on the second Shuttle flight
in November 1981. Originally planned by NASA to be flown only occasionally, Canadarm
has become a semi-permanent fixture due to its versatility and reliability, especially in support
of extra-vehicular activities; i.e., spacewalks; and, more recently, as an essential element in
the construction and servicing of the International Space Station and the detailed remote
inspection of the Shuttle after each launch that is now a mandatory feature of each mission.
Canadarm has become an important and very visible global symbol of Canadian technical
competence, a fact celebrated in a recent 2008 poll of Canadians that identified the Canadarm
as the top defining accomplishment of the country over the last century.
Returning to scientific endeavours, the Shuttle’s legacy with respect to the space sciences in
Canada was more circuitous. Towards the end of the 1970s, following the successful
Alouette/ISIS series, Canada turned its attention to defining its next indigenous scientific
satellite mission. As the merits of a candidate satellite called Polaire were debated, Canadian
© 2009, Canadian Space Agency. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. All rights reserved.
John Young, commander of the first space shuttle mission, pegged the shuttle perfectly
as “a remarkable flying machine.” Arising from the American traditions of ingenuity
and innovation, the Space Shuttle expanded the range of human activity in near-Earth
space. Serving as a cargo carrier, satellite deployment and servicing station, research
laboratory, construction platform, and intermittent space station, the versatile shuttle
gave scores of people an opportunity to live and do meaningful work in space. One of
the most complex technology systems ever developed and the only reusable spacecraft
ever operated, the shuttle was America’s first attempt to make human spaceflight
routine. For more than 30 years and more than 125 missions, the Space Shuttle kept the
United States at the forefront of spaceflight and engaged people here and around the
world with its achievements and its tragedies. The experience gained from the Space
Shuttle Program will no doubt infuse future spacecraft design and spaceflight operations
for years to come.
© 2009, John Dailey. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. All rights reserved.
The space race, set in motion by the 1957 launch of Sputnik and reaching its pinnacle with
the Apollo 11 landing on the moon, is credited with inspiring a generation of engineers. In the
United States, Congress in 1958 provided funding for college students and improvements in
science, mathematics, and foreign-language instruction at elementary and secondary schools.
Math and science curricula flourished. University enrollment in science and engineering
programs grew dramatically. For over a decade, not only engineers themselves, but policy
makers and the public genuinely believed that the future depended on engineers and scientists
and that education would have to inspire young people to pursue those careers.
Almost as if they were icing on the cake, innovation and technology directly or indirectly
inspired by the space program began to shape the way we live and work: satellite
communications, satellite navigation, photovoltaics, robotics, fault-tolerant computing,
countless specialty materials, biomedical sensors, and consumer products all advanced
through the space program.
Over the 30-year era of the Space Shuttle, it sometimes seems that we’ve come to take space
flight for granted. Interest in technology has declined: bachelor’s degrees awarded in
engineering in the US peaked in 1985. Reports such as the Rising Above the Gathering Storm
(National Academies Press, 2007) urge a massive improvement in K-12 math, science, and
technology education in order to fuel innovation and ensure future prosperity. Engineering
educators are looking to the National Academy of Engineering’s “grand challenges”
(NAE, 2008) not only to transform the world, but to inspire the next generation of students.
Has space exploration lost the ability to inspire? I don’t think so. Over the past five years,
I have talked about engineering careers with more than 6,000 first-year engineering students
at Purdue University, asking them what engineers do and why they are studying engineering.
Not a session has gone by without at least one student saying “I’m studying engineering
because I want to be an astronaut.” Purdue students come by this ambition honestly: 22 Purdue
graduates have become astronauts, including Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the
moon, and Eugene Cernan, the last—or as he prefers to say, “the most recent.” A remarkable
18 of the 22 (all except Armstrong, Cernan, Grissom, and Chaffee) have flown Space Shuttle
missions, for a total of 56 missions. Inspiration lives.
© 2009, Leah Jamieson. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. All rights reserved.
When I was asked by Wayne Hale to provide an essay on the topic of this paper, I was as
nearly speechless as I ever become. Wayne is a former Space Shuttle Program Manager and
Shuttle Flight Director. In the latter capacity, he holds the record—which cannot now be
broken—for directing shuttle ascents and re-entries, generally the most dynamic portion of
any shuttle mission. His knowledge of the Space Shuttle system and its history, capabilities,
and limitations is encyclopedic.
In contrast, I didn’t work on the shuttle until, on April 14, 2005, I became responsible for it.
Forrest Gump’s mother’s observation that “life is like a box of chocolates; you never know
what you’re going to get,” certainly comes to mind in this connection. But more to the point,
what could I possibly say that would be of any value to Wayne? But, of course, I am
determined to try.
The first thing I might note is that, whether I worked on it or not, the shuttle has dominated
my professional life. Some connections are obvious. In my earlier and more productive years,
I worked on systems that flew into space aboard shuttle. As I matured—meaning that I
offered less and less value at higher and higher organizational levels—I acquired higher level
responsibility for programs and missions flying on shuttle. I first met Mike Coats, director
of the Johnson Space Center, through just such a connection. Mike commanded STS-39,
a Strategic Defense Initiative mission for which I was responsible. Later, as NASA Chief
Engineer in the early ‘90s, I led one of the Space Station Freedom redesign teams; the biggest
factor influencing station design and operations was the constraint to fly on shuttle.
My professional connections with the Space Shuttle are hopelessly intertwined with more
personal ones. Many of the engineers closest to me, friends and colleagues I value most
highly, have worked with shuttle for decades. And, over the years, the roster of shuttle
astronauts has included some of the closest friends I have. A hundred others have been
classmates and professional colleagues, supervisors and subordinates, people I see every
day, or people I see once a year. Speaking a bit tongue-in-cheek, I once told long-time friend
Joe Engle that I loved hearing his stories about flying the X-15 because, I said, they were
different; my other friends had all flown on shuttle.
From time to time, I make it a point to remember that two of them died on it.
Most of us have similar connections to the Space Shuttle, no matter what part of the space
business in which we have worked. But the influence of the shuttle on the American
*Constellation refers to the NASA program designed to build the capability to leave low-Earth orbit.
Appendix
Program Managers/Acknowledgments
Selected Readings
Acronyms
Contributors’ Biographies
Index
Appendix 517
Flight Information
Approx.
Orbiter Enterprise STS Flight No. Orbiter Crew Launch Mission
Approach and Landing Test Flights and Crew Patch Name Members Date Days
518 Appendix
Flight Information
Approx. Approx.
STS Flight No. Orbiter Crew Launch Mission STS Flight No. Orbiter Crew Launch Mission
and Crew Patch Name Members Date Days and Crew Patch Name Members Date Days
41B Challenger Vance Brand (Cdr) 2/3/1984 8 51G Discovery Daniel Brandenstein (Cdr) 6/17/1985 7
Robert Gibson (Plt) John Creighton (Plt)
Bruce McCandless (MS) John Fabian (MS)
Ronald McNair (MS) Steven Nagel (MS)
Robert Stewart (MS) Shannon Lucid (MS)
Patrick Baudry (PS) France
Sultan Al-Saud (PS) Saudi Arabia
41C Challenger Robert Crippen (Cdr) 4/6/1984 7
Francis Scobee (Plt)
51F Challenger Gordon Fullerton (Cdr) 7/29/1985 8
Terry Hart (MS)
Roy Bridges (Plt)
James van Hoften (MS)
Karl Henize (MS)
George Nelson (MS)
Anthony England (MS)
Story Musgrave (MS)
Loren Acton (PS)
John-David Bartoe (PS)
41D Discovery Henry Hartsfield (Cdr) 8/30/1984 6
Michael Coats (Plt)
Judith Resnik (MS) 51I Discovery Joe Engle (Cdr) 8/27/1985 7
Steven Hawley (MS) Richard Covey (Plt)
Richard Mullane (MS) James van Hoften (MS)
Charles Walker (PS) John Lounge (MS)
William Fisher (MS)
Appendix 519
Flight Information
Approx. Approx.
STS Flight No. Orbiter Crew Launch Mission STS Flight No. Orbiter Crew Launch Mission
and Crew Patch Name Members Date Days and Crew Patch Name Members Date Days
26 Discovery Frederick Hauck (Cdr) 9/29/1988 4 36 Atlantis John Creighton, (Cdr) 2/28/1990 4
Richard Covey (Plt) John Casper (Plt)
John Lounge (MS) David Hilmers (MS)
George Nelson (MS) Richard Mullane (MS)
David Hilmers (MS) Pierre Thuot (MS)
520 Appendix
Flight Information
Approx. Approx.
STS Flight No. Orbiter Crew Launch Mission STS Flight No. Orbiter Crew Launch Mission
and Crew Patch Name Members Date Days and Crew Patch Name Members Date Days
48 Discovery John Creighton (Cdr) 9/12/1991 5 52 Columbia James Wetherbee (Cdr) 10/22/1992 10
Kenneth Reightler (Plt) Michael Baker (Plt)
Charles Gemar (MS) Charles Veach (MS)
James Buchli (MS) William Shepherd (MS)
Mark Brown (MS) Tamara Jernigan (MS)
Steven MacLean (PS)
46 Atlantis Loren Shriver (Cdr) 7/31/1992 8 51 Discovery Frank Culbertson (Cdr) 9/12/1993 10
Andrew Allen (Plt) William Readdy (Plt)
Claude Nicollier (MS) Switzerland James Newman (MS)
Marsha Ivins (MS) Daniel Bursch (MS)
Jeffrey Hoffman (MS) Carl Walz (MS)
Franklin Chang-Diaz (MS)
Franco Malerba (PS) Italy
47 Endeavour Robert Gibson (Cdr) 9/12/1992 8 58 Columbia John Blaha (Cdr) 10/18/1993 14
Curtis Brown (Plt) Richard Searfoss (Plt)
Mark Lee (MS) Rhea Seddon (MS)
Jay Apt (MS) William McArthur (MS)
Jan Davis (MS) David Wolf (MS)
Mae Jemison (MS) Shannon Lucid (MS)
Mamoru Mohri (PS) Japan Martin Fettman (PS)
Appendix 521
Flight Information
Approx. Approx.
STS Flight No. Orbiter Crew Launch Mission STS Flight No. Orbiter Crew Launch Mission
and Crew Patch Name Members Date Days and Crew Patch Name Members Date Days
61 Endeavour Richard Covey (Cdr) 12/2/1993 11 63 Discovery James Wetherbee (Cdr) 2/3/1995 8
Kenneth Bowersox (Plt) Eileen Collins (Plt)
Kathryn Thornton (MS) Bernard Harris (MS)
Claude Nicollier (MS) Switzerland Michael Foale (MS)
Jeffrey Hoffman (MS) Janice Voss (MS)
Story Musgrave (MS) Vladimir Titov (MS) Russia
Thomas Akers (MS)
522 Appendix
Flight Information
Approx. Approx.
STS Flight No. Orbiter Crew Launch Mission STS Flight No. Orbiter Crew Launch Mission
and Crew Patch Name Members Date Days and Crew Patch Name Members Date Days
75 Columbia Andrew Allen (Cdr) 2/22/1996 16 83 Columbia James Halsell (Cdr) 4/4/1997 4
Scott Horowitz (Plt) Susan Still (Plt)
Jeffrey Hoffman (MS) Janice Voss (MS)
Maurizio Cheli (MS) Italy Michael Gernhardt (MS)
Claude Nicollier (MS) Switzerland Donald Thomas (MS)
Franklin Chang-Diaz (MS) Roger Crouch (PS)
Umberto Guidoni (PS) Italy Gregory Linteris (PS)
76 Atlantis Kevin Chilton (Cdr) 3/22/1996 9 84 Atlantis Charles Precourt (Cdr) 5/15/1997 10
Richard Searfoss (Plt) Eileen Collins (Plt)
Ronald Sega (MS) Jean-Francois Clervoy (MS) France
Michael Clifford (MS) Carlos Noriega (MS)
Linda Godwin (MS) Edward Lu (MS)
Shannon Lucid (MS, UP) Elena Kondakova (MS) Russia
Michael Foale (MS, UP)
Jerry Linenger (MS, DN)
77 Endeavour John Casper (Cdr) 5/19/1996 10
Curtis Brown (Plt) 94 Columbia James Halsell (Cdr) 7/1/1997 16
Andrew Thomas (MS) Susan Still (Plt)
Daniel Bursch (MS) Janice Voss (MS)
Mario Runco (MS) Michael Gernhardt (MS)
Marc Garneau (MS) Canada Donald Thomas (MS)
Roger Crouch (PS)
Gregory Linteris (PS)
78 Columbia Terence Henricks (Cdr) 6/20/1996 17
Kevin Kregel (Plt) 85 Discovery Curtis Brown (Cdr) 8/7/1997 12
Richard Linnehan (MS) Kent Rominger (Plt)
Susan Helms (MS) Jan Davis (MS)
Charles Brady (MS) Robert Curbeam (MS)
Jean-Jacques Favier (PS) France Stephen Robinson (MS)
Robert Thirsk (PS) Canada Bjarni Tryggvason (PS) Canada
79 Atlantis William Readdy (Cdr) 9/16/1996 10 86 Atlantis James Wetherbee (Cdr) 9/25/1997 11
Terrence Wilcutt (Plt) Michael Bloomfield (Plt)
Jay Apt (MS) Vladimir Titov (MS) Russia
Thomas Akers (MS) Scott Parazynski (MS)
Carl Walz (MS) Jean-Loup Chretien (MS) France
John Blaha (MS, UP) Wendy Lawrence (MS)
Shannon Lucid (MS, DN) David Wolf (MS, UP)
Michael Foale (MS, DN)
80 Columbia Kenneth Cockrell (Cdr) 11/19/1996 18
Kent Rominger (Plt) 87 Columbia Kevin Kregel (Cdr) 11/19/1997 16
Tamara Jernigan (MS) Steven Lindsey (Plt)
Thomas Jones (MS) Kalpana Chawla (MS)
Story Musgrave (MS) Winston Scott (MS)
Takao Doi (MS) Japan
Leonid Kadenyuk (PS) Ukraine
Appendix 523
Flight Information
Approx. Approx.
STS Flight No. Orbiter Crew Launch Mission STS Flight No. Orbiter Crew Launch Mission
and Crew Patch Name Members Date Days and Crew Patch Name Members Date Days
91 Discovery Charles Precourt (Cdr) 6/2/1998 10 106 Atlantis Terrence Wilcutt (Cdr) 9/8/2000 12
Dominic Gorie (Plt) Scott Altman (Plt)
Franklin Chang-Diaz (MS) Edward Lu (MS)
Wendy Lawrence (MS) Richard Mastracchio (MS)
Janet Kavandi (MS) Daniel Burbank (MS)
Valery Ryumin (MS) Russia Yuri Malenchenko (MS) Russia
Andrew Thomas (MS, DN) Boris Morukov (MS) Russia
95 Discovery Curtis Brown (Cdr) 10/29/1998 10 92 Discovery Bryan Duffy (Cdr) 10/11/2000 12
Steven Lindsey (Plt) Pamela Melroy (Plt)
Stephen Robinson (MS) Leroy Chiao (MS)
Scott Parazynski (MS) William McArthur (MS)
Pedro Duque (MS) Spain Peter Wisoff (MS)
Chiaki Mukai (PS) Japan Michael Lopez-Alegria (MS)
John Glenn (PS) Koichi Wakata (MS) Japan
524 Appendix
Flight Information
Approx. Approx.
STS Flight No. Orbiter Crew Launch Mission STS Flight No. Orbiter Crew Launch Mission
and Crew Patch Name Members Date Days and Crew Patch Name Members Date Days
108 Endeavour Dominic Gorie (Cdr) 12/5/2001 12 114 Discovery Eileen Collins (Cdr) 7/26/2005 14
Mark Kelly (Plt) James Kelly (Plt)
Linda Godwin (MS) Soichi Noguchi (MS) Japan
Daniel Tani (MS) Stephen Robinson (MS)
Yuri Onufrienko (MS, UP) Russia Andrew Thomas (MS)
Daniel Bursch (MS, UP) Wendy Lawrence (MS)
Carl Walz (MS, UP) Charles Camarda (MS)
Frank Culbertson (MS, DN)
Vladimir Dezhurov (MS, DN) Russia
Mikhail Tyurin (MS, DN) Russia 121 Discovery Steven Lindsey (Cdr) 7/4/2006 13
Mark Kelly (Plt)
Michael Fossum (MS)
109 Columbia Scott Altman (Cdr) 3/1/2002 11 Lisa Nowak (MS)
Duane Carey (Plt) Stephanie Wilson (MS)
John Grunsfeld (MS) Piers Sellers (MS)
Nancy Currie (MS) Thomas Reiter (MS, UP) Germany
Richard Linnehan (MS)
James Newman (MS)
Michael Massimino (MS) 115 Atlantis Brent Jett (Cdr) 9/9/2006 12
Christopher Ferguson (Plt)
Joseph Tanner (MS)
110 Atlantis Michael Bloomfield (Cdr) 4/8/2002 11 Daniel Burbank (MS)
Stephen Frick (Plt) Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper (MS)
Rex Walheim (MS) Steven MacLean (MS) Canada
Ellen Ochoa (MS)
Lee Morin (MS)
Jerry Ross (MS)
Steven Smith (MS)
116 Discovery Mark Polansky (Cdr) 12/9/2006 13
William Oefelein (Plt)
Nicholas Patrick (MS)
111 Endeavour Kenneth Cockrell (Cdr) 6/5/2002 14 Robert Curbeam (MS)
Paul Lockhart (Plt) Christer Fuglesang (MS) Sweden
Franklin Chang-Diaz (MS) Joan Higginbotham (MS)
Philippe Perrin (MS) France Sunita Williams (MS, UP)
Valery Korzun (MS, UP) Russia Thomas Reiter (MS, DN) Germany
Peggy Whitson (MS, UP)
Sergei Treschev (MS, UP) Russia
Yuri Onufrienko (MS, DN) Russia 117 Atlantis Frederick Sturkow (Cdr) 6/8/2007 14
Daniel Bursch (MS, DN) Lee Archambault (Plt)
Carl Walz (MS, DN) Patrick Forrester (MS)
Steven Swanson (MS)
112 Atlantis Jeffrey Ashby (Cdr) 10/7/2002 11 John Olivas (MS)
Pamela Melroy (Plt) James Reilly (MS)
David Wolf (MS) Clayton Anderson (MS, UP)
Sandra Magnus (MS) Sunita Williams (MS, DN)
Piers Sellers (MS)
Fyodor Yurchikhin (MS) Russia
118 Endeavour Scott Kelly (Cdr) 8/8/2007 14
Charles Hobaugh (Plt)
Tracy Caldwell (MS)
113 Endeavour James Wetherbee (Cdr) 11/23/2002 14 Richard Mastracchio (MS)
Paul Lockhart (Plt) Dafydd Williams (MS) Canada
Michael Lopez-Alegria (MS) Barbara Morgan (MS)
John Herrington (MS) Benjamin Drew (MS)
Kenneth Bowersox (MS, UP)
Nikolai Budarin (MS, UP) Russia
Donald Pettit (MS, UP)
Valery Korzun (MS, DN) Russia 120 Discovery Pamela Melroy (Cdr) 10/23/2007 15
Sergei Treschev (MS, DN) Russia George Zamka (Plt)
Peggy Whitson (MS, DN) Scott Parazynski (MS)
Stephanie Wilson (MS)
Douglas Wheelock (MS)
107 Columbia Rick Husband (Cdr) 1/16/2003 16
Paolo Nespoli (MS) Italy
William McCool (Plt)
Daniel Tani (MS, UP)
Michael Anderson (MS)
Clayton Anderson (MS, DN)
David Brown (MS)
Kalpana Chawla (MS)
Laurel Clark (MS)
Ilan Ramon (PS) Israel
Appendix 525
Flight Information
Approx. Approx.
STS Flight No. Orbiter Crew Launch Mission STS Flight No. Orbiter Crew Launch Mission
and Crew Patch Name Members Date Days and Crew Patch Name Members Date Days
122 Atlantis Stephen Frick (Cdr) 2/7/2008 13 128 Discovery Frederick Sturckow (Cdr) 8/28/09 15
Alan Poindexter (Plt) Kevin Ford (Plt)
Leland Melvin (MS) Patrick Forrester (MS)
Rex Walheim (MS) Jose Hernandez (MS)
Hans Schlegel (MS) Germany John Olivas (MS)
Stanley Love (MS) Christer Fuglesang (MS) Sweden
Leopold Eyharts (MS, UP) France Nicole Stott (MS, UP)
Daniel Tani (MS, DN) Timothy Kopra (MS, DN)
123 Endeavour Dominic Gorie (Cdr) 3/11/2008 16 129 Atlantis Charles Hobaugh (Cdr) 11/16/09 11
Gregory H. Johnson (Plt) Barry Wilmore (Plt)
Robert Behnken (MS) Randolph Bresnik (MS)
Michael Foreman (MS) Michael Foreman (MS)
Takao Doi (MS) Japan Leland Melvin (MS)
Richard Linnehan (MS) Robert Satcher (MS)
Garrett Reisman (MS, UP) Nicole Stott (MS, DN)
Leopold Eyharts (MS, DN) France
526 Appendix
Payloads and Experiments per Space Shuttle Flight
Education
Payloads
US International and Student- Astronaut Commercial Construction
STS Department Payloads and Teacher Earth Space Microgravity Space Health and Payloads Engineering of International
Flight No. Test Flights of Defense Astronauts Interactions Science Science Science Biology Performance and Satellites Tests Space Station
1 l l l
2 l l l l
3 l l l l l l l l l
4 l l l l l l l l
5 l l l l l l l
6 l l l l l l l
7 l l l l l l l
8 l l l l l l l l l
9 l l l l l l l l
41B l l l l l l l
41C l l l l l l l
41D l l l l l l l l
41G l l l l l l l l l l
51A l l l l l l
51C l l
51D l l l l l l l l
51B l l l l l l l l
51G l l l l l l l l
51F l l l l l l l l
51I l l l l l l
51J l l
61A l l l l l l
61B l l l l l l l
61C l l l l l l
51L
26 l l l l l l l l
27 l l l
29 l l l l l l l
30 l l l l l l l
28 l l l
34 l l l l l l l l l
33 l l l
32 l l l l l l l
36 l l l
31 l l l l l l l
41 l l l l l l l l l
38 l l l l
35 l l l l l
37 l l l l l l l l
39 l l l l
40 l l l l l l l
43 l l l l l l
48 l l l l l l l l
44 l l l l l
42 l l l l l l l l
Appendix 527
Payloads and Experiments per Space Shuttle Flight
Education
Payloads
US International and Student- Astronaut Commercial Construction
STS Department Payloads and Teacher Earth Space Microgravity Space Health and Payloads Engineering of International
Flight No. Test Flights of Defense Astronauts Interactions Science Science Science Biology Performance and Satellites Tests Space Station
45 l l l l l l l l l
49 l l l l
50 l l l l l
46 l l l l l l l l
47 l l l l l l l
52 l l l l l l l l
53 l l l l l l
54 l l l l l l l
56 l l l l l l l l l
55 l l l l l l l l
57 l l l l l l l l l l
51 l l l l l l l l
58 l l l l
61 l l l l l l
60 l l l l l l l l
62 l l l l l l l l
59 l l l l l l l l l
65 l l l l l l l l l
64 l l l l l l l l l l
68 l l l l l l l l l l
66 l l l l l l l
63 l l l l l l l l l
67 l l l l l l l
71 l l l l l l
70 l l l l l l l l
69 l l l l l l l l l l
73 l l l l l l
74 l l l l l l l
72 l l l l l l l
75 l l l l l l
76 l l l l l l l
77 l l l l l l l l
78 l l l l l l l
79 l l l l l l l l l l
80 l l l l l l l l l
81 l l l l l l l
82 l l l
83 l l l l l l
84 l l l l l l l l l
94 l l l l l l l
85 l l l l l l l l l l
86 l l l l l l l l l
87 l l l l l l l l l l
89 l l l l l l l l
90 l l l l l l l l
528 Appendix
Payloads and Experiments per Space Shuttle Flight
Education
Payloads
US International and Student- Astronaut Commercial Construction
STS Department Payloads and Teacher Earth Space Microgravity Space Health and Payloads Engineering of International
Flight No. Test Flights of Defense Astronauts Interactions Science Science Science Biology Performance and Satellites Tests Space Station
91 l l l l l l l l l
95 l l l l l l l l l l
88 l l l l l l l l
96 l l l l l
93 l l l l l l l l l
103 l l l l
99 l l l l l
101 l l l l l l l
106 l l l l l l l l
92 l l l l l
97 l l l l l l
98 l l l l l
102 l l l l l
100 l l l l l
104 l l l l
105 l l l l l l
108 l l l l l l l l l
109 l l l l
110 l l l l l l l
111 l l l l l
112 l l l l l l l
113 l l l l
107 l l l l l l l
114 l l l l l l
121 l l l l l l
115 l l l l l l
116 l l l l l
117 l l l
118 l l l l l l
120 l l l l
122 l l l l l l
123 l l l l l l
124 l l l
126 l l l l l l l
119 l l l l l l
125 l l l l
127 l l l l l l l l
128 l l l l l l
129 l l l l l l
130 l l l l l l
131 l l l l l l
132 l l l l l l
Appendix 529
Space Shuttle Program Managers Acknowledgments
John Shannon We would like to extend a special “thank you” to the following
February 2008 – Present individuals for their invaluable contributions to this book.
Wayne Hale Research interns:
September 2005 – February 2008
Jared Donnelly, Hannah Kohler, Tiffany Lewis, Jason Miller,
William Parsons and Jonathan Torres.
July 2003 – September 2005
Technical, legal, budgetary, procurement, secretarial, photography,
Ronald Dittemore publication, and public affairs:
April 1999 – July 2003
John Aaron, Randall Adams, Robin Allen, Carol Andrews, Lauren Artman,
Thomas Holloway Robert Atkins, Joan Baker, Jonathan Baker, Timothy Bayline,
November 1995 – April 1999
Wayne Bingham, Gregory Blackburn, Jamie Bolton, Eric Bordelon,
Brewster Shaw Jim Brazda, Jack Brazzel, Rebecca Bresnik, Frank Brody, Deborah Byerly,
March 1993 – November 1995 Vicki Cantrell, William Carr, John Casper, Norman Chaffee,
Leonard Nicholson Ruth Ann Chicoine, Randle Clay, Nicole Cloutier, John Coggeshall,
June 1989 – March 1993 Deborah Conder, Mark Craig, Maryann Cresap, Roger Crouch,
Francis Cuccinota, Hunt Culver, Michael Curie, Benjamin Daniel,
Richard Kohrs
November 1986 – June 1989
Dennis Davidson, Alexander Dawn, Alex De La Torre, William Dowdell,
Cynthia Draughon, Roger Elliot, Stephen Elsner, Cliff Farmer,
Arnold Aldrich Edward Fein, Howard Flynn, Jerry Forney, Marcus Friske, Stephen Garber,
June 1985 – November 1986
Roberto Garcia, Joe Gensler, Cory George, Charles Ginnega, John Golden,
Glynn Lunney Sharon Goza, Cathy Graham, Megan Grande, Laura Gross, John Grunsfeld,
June 1981 – June 1985 Michael Gunson, Mark Hammerschmidt, David Hanson, Mary Jo Harris,
Robert Thompson James Hartsfield, Daniel Hausman, Eileen Hawley, Sharon Hecht,
February 1970 – June 1981 Johnny Heflin, Mack Henderson, Edward Henderson, Fredrick Henn,
Francisco Hernandez, Ben Higgins, Michael Hiltz, Jeff Hoffman,
William Hoffman, Steve Holmes, Doris Hood, Christy Howard,
Christopher Iannello, John Irving, Bob Jacobs, Brian Johnson, Janet Johnson,
Katelyn Johnson, Nicholas Johnson, Perry Johnson-Green, Wesley Johnson,
Kathleen Kaminski, David Kanipe, David Kendall, Gary Kitmacher,
Peter Klonowski, Tommy Knight, Joseph Kosmo, Julie Kramer-White,
John Kress, Michael Kuta, Keelee Kyles, Meghan LaCroix, Robert Lambdin,
Barbara Langston, James Larocque, Kirby Lawless, Diane Laymon,
Steven Lindsey, Steven Lloyd, Christopher Madden, Lynnette Madison,
Raquel Madrigal, Lisa Malone, Charles Martin, Ryan Martin,
Naoko Matsuo, Samantha McDonald, James Mceuen, Alexander McPherson,
Marshall Mellard, Messia Miller, Jessica Miller, Katherine Mims,
Danielle Mondoux, Owen Morris, Jeff Mosit, Paul Munafo,
Margaret Nemerov, Peter Nickolenko, Lorna Onizuka, Michael Orr,
James Owen, Kathy Padgett, Michael Pedley, Brian Peterson,
Douglas Peterson, John Petty, Steve Poulos, Donald Prevett, Maureen Priddy,
Alison Protz, Lisa Rasco, Dorothy Rasco, Brett Raulerson, Mark Richards,
Timothy Riley, Thomas Roberts, Benjamin Robertson, Ned Robinson,
Jennifer Rochlis, Patricia Ross, James Rostohar, Steven Roy, Gary Ruff,
Robert Ryan, Ted Schaffner, Calvin Schomburg, Susan Scogin,
Barbara Shannon, John Shannon, Jody Singer, Alice Slay, Jean Snowden,
Eileen Stansbery, Mike Sterling, Victoria Stowe, Russ Stowe,
David Sutherland, Macie Sutton, Robert Synder, Donald Tillian,
Bert Timmerman, Robert Trevino, David Urban, Paula Vargas, Andy Warren,
Kathy Weisskopf, Shayne Westover, Mary Wilkerson, Justin Wilkinson,
Martin Wilson, Sean Wilson, Cynthia Wimberly, James Wise,
Lybrease Woodard, Gary Woods, Dwight Woolhouse, Peggy Wooten,
Roy Worthy, Rebecca Wright, and Martin Zell.
530 Appendix
Selected Readings
NASA Centers:
Ames Research Center: The Historical Legacy
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/home/index.html
Milestones
Dryden Flight Research Center:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/home/index.html Publications and Web links:
Glenn Research Center: Remembering the Space Age. Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Conference.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/home/index.html Dick, S, editor. NASA, Washington DC. NASA/SP-2008-4703.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090013341_2009005513.pdf
Goddard Space Flight Center:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/home/index.html Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight. Dick, S and Launius, R, editors.
NASA, Washington, DC. NASA/SP-2006-4702.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060022843_2006166766.pdf
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/
Leadership in Space. Selected Speeches of NASA Administrator Michael Griffin,
Johnson Space Center: May 2005-October 2008. Griffin, M. NASA/SP-2008-564.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/home/index.html http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090009154_2009002630.pdf
Kennedy Space Center: Space Shuttle Decision 1965-1972. Heppenheimer, TA. Smithsonian Institution
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/home/index.html Press, Washington, DC, 2002.
Langley Research Center: Development of the Space Shuttle 1972-1981. Heppenheimer, TA. Smithsonian
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/home/index.html Institution Press, Washington, DC, 2002.
Marshall Space Flight Center: Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space Transportation System, The First
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/home/index.html 100 Missions. Jenkins, DR, Cape Canaveral, Florida, 2001.
Michoud Assembly Facility: Toward a History of the Space Shuttle: An Annotated Bibliography. Compiled by
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/michoud/index.html Launius, RD and Gillette, AK, 1992.
NASA Headquarters: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Shuttlebib/contents.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/hq/home/index.html
Stennis Space Center:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/stennis/home/index.html The Accidents: A Nation’s Tragedy, NASA’s Challenge
Appendix 531
Selected Readings
Flight Operations
Aerodynamics and Flight Dynamics
Web links:
Shuttle Training Aircraft—Test Drive: Web links:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/preparingtravel/rtf_week5_sta.html Boundary Layer Transition:
Payload Communication System: http://www.nas.nasa.gov/SC09/PDF/Datasheets/Tang_boundarylayer.pdf
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/orbiter/comm/orbcomm/ Early Conceptual Designs for the Orbiter: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-432/ch4.htm
plcomm.html
The Space Shuttle’s First Flight: STS-1:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter12.html
Extravehicular Activity Operations and Advancements
532 Appendix
Selected Readings
Space Telescope Science Institute/Hubble Space Telescope: Life Sciences Data Base—Human Research Program Data: http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/
http://www.stsci.edu/hst/
Appendix 533
Selected Readings
Microgravity Research in the Space Shuttle Era Social, Cultural, and Educational Legacies
Publications and Web links: NASA Reflects America’s Changing Opportunities; NASA Impacts US Culture
Cell Growth in Microgravity. Sundaresan, A; Risin, D; and Pellis, NR. Publication:
Encyclopedia of Molecular Cell Biology and Molecular Medicine, Vol. 2,
pp 303-321, Edited by Meyers, RA; Sendtko, A; and Henheik, P. Wiley-VCH, Societal Impact of Spaceflight. Dick, SJ and Launius, RD. NASA, Washington, DC,
Weinheim, Germany, 2004. NASA SP-2007-4801.
“Genes in Microgravity,” Rayl, AJS. DISCOVER, Vol. 22, No. 9, September 2001.
http://discovermagazine.com/2001/sep/featgenes
Education: Inspiring Students as Only NASA Can
Spacelab Science Results Study. Naumann, RJ; Lundquist, CA; Tandberg-Hanssen,
E; Horwitz, JL; Cruise, JF; Lewis, ML; and Murphy, KL. NASA/CR-2009-215740. Web links:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090023425_2009021429.pdf
EarthKAM: https://earthkam.ucsd.edu
Spacelab 3 Mission Science Review. NASA Conference Publication 2429. Fichtl, http://geoearthkam.tamu.edu/EarthKAM_AM.ppt
GH; Theon, JS; Hill, KC; and Vaughan, OH, editors. http://www.ncsu.edu/earthkam/simulation/
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870012670_1987012670.pdf
Toys in Space: http://quest.nasa.gov/space/teachers/liftoff/toys.html
First International Microgravity Laboratory. McMahan, T; Shea, C; Wiginton, M;
Challenger Center: http://www.challenger.org/
Neal, V; Gately, M; Hunt, L; Graben, J; and Tiderman, J; Accardi, D. NASA
TM-108007, 1993. Resources for Educators: http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930003925_1993003925.pdf
Project Starshine: http://spacekids.hq.nasa.gov/starshine/
First International Microgravity Laboratory Experiment Descriptions. Miller, TY.
Get Away Special Program—Historical Information:
TM-4353, 1992.
http://library01.gsfc.nasa.gov/host/hitchhiker/history.html
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19920014357_1992014357.pdf
Shuttle Amateur Radio Experiment: http://www.qsl.net/w2vtm/shuttle.html
Microgravity: A Teacher’s Guide With Activities in Science, Mathematics, and
Technology. Rogers, JB; Vogt, GL; and Wargo, MJ. EG-1997-08-1100-HQ. Instrumentation Technology Associates, Inc. (ITA) Student Outreach Program:
http://teacherlink.ed.usu.edu/tlnasa/units/Microgravity/04.pdf http://www.itaspace.com/students.html
Joint Launch + One Year Science Review of USML-1 and USMP-1 with the
Microgravity Measurement Group. Volume I and II. Ramachandran, N; Frazier,
DO; Lehoczky, SL; and Baugher, CR, editors. NASA-CP-3272-VOL-I and
NASA-CP-3272-VOL-II.
Volume I: Industries and Spin-offs
http://www.ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19950007793_
Web links:
1995107793.pdf
Volume II: MicroMed Cardiovascular, Inc.:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030075796_2003085850.pdf http://www.micromedcv.com/united_states/index.html
The First United States Microgravity Laboratory. Shea, C; McMahan, T; Accardi, NASA-developed Tool—LifeShear:
D; and Mikatarian, J. NASA-TM-107980, 1993. http://ipp.nasa.gov/innovation/Innovation34/Rescue.html
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930003763_1993003763.pdf
Microbial Check Valve: http://www.urc.cc/rmcv.htm
Second United States Microgravity Payload: One Year Report. Curreri, PA and
McCauley, DE. NASA-TM-4737, 1996.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960038726_1996063204.pdf
Second International Microgravity Laboratory (IML-2) Final Report. Snyder, R,
compiler. NASA/RP-1405, 1997.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19970035095_1997064524.pdf
Second United States Microgravity Laboratory (USML-2) One Year Report,
Volume I. Vlasse, M; McCauley, D; and Walker, C. NASA/TM-1998-208697, 1998.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19990018868_1998415108.pdf
Second United States Microgravity Laboratory (USML-2) One Year Report,
Volume 2. Vlasse, M; McCauley, D; and Walker, C.
NASA/TM-1998-208697/VOL2.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19990009671_1998415144.pdf
Get Away Special… the first ten years. NASA-TM-102921, 1989.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900007459_1990007459.pdf
534 Appendix
Acronyms
ANDE Atmospheric Neutral Density Experiment JAXA Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials JSC Johnson Space Center
BIRD Bird Investigation Review and Deterrent kph kilometers per hour
CAT computerized axial tomography LAURA Langley Aerothermodynamic Upwind Relaxation Algorithm
CIRRIS Cryogenic Infrared Radiance Instrumentation for Shuttle LiOH lithium hydroxide
DSMC Direct Simulation Monte Carlo NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
EarthKAM Earth Knowledge Acquired by Middle School Students NSS National Security Space
EROS Earth Resources Observation and Science PCGOAL Personal Computer Ground Operations Aerospace Language
hp horsepower UV ultraviolet
Appendix 535
Contributers’ Biographies
Alexander, Iwan – Professor and Chair of Mechanical Bordano, Aldo – Retired from NASA in 2000 after 37 Castner, Willard – Metallurgical engineer who, during
and Aerospace Engineering at Case Western years of engineering service at Johnson Space Center. his 30+ years at Johnson Space Center, specialized in
Reserve University. Investigator for five space Chief of the Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics nondestructive testing, materials testing, and failure
experiments, semiconductor crystal growth, liquid Division (1991-2000). Expertise in vehicle guidance analysis. Active member of the American Society for
diffusion experiment, and an acceleration and flight mechanics was critical to the design and Nondestructive Testing during NASA career.
measurement. Director of the National Center for development of shuttle spacecraft.
Chandler, Michael – Deputy branch chief of medical
Space for 5 years.
Brown, Steve – Started at Johnson Space Center in operations at Johnson Space Center. Member of the
Alfrey, Clarence – Professor at Baylor College of 1974 with the McDonnell Douglas Corporation. Department of Defense Space Transportation System
Medicine and former chief of hematology and Supported the Space Shuttle Program in contingency support office during the Challenger
medical director of the regional blood center. MD aerodynamics throughout career. Worked in the area accident. Member of the NASA Mishap Investigation
from Baylor College of Medicine with residency in of wind tunnel testing, and verification of the Team following the Columbia Accident.
internal medicine at State University of Iowa and aerodynamic database for the simulators.
Chapline, Gail – Worked primarily at Johnson Space
fellow in hematology at the Mayo Clinic.
Brown, Robert – Lead electrical controls engineer. Center as a materials engineer. Supervised the
Armor, James – Major General, US Air Force More than 11 years experience working electrical materials branch. Also worked in the Shuttle
(retired). Selected as a military spaceflight control upgrades for all mobile launcher platform and Program Office, NASA Headquarters, National
engineering program astronaut, but never flew as pad ground support equipment at Kennedy Space Transportation and Safety Board, and NASA White
program discontinued. Center. BS in Electrical Engineering, University of Sands Test Facility. MS in Materials Engineering,
Central Florida. Northwestern University.
Bacon, John – Systems engineer in the International
Space Station (ISS) Program Office. For 20 years, he Bryant, Lee – Started as a NASA contractor in 1982 Charles, John – Program scientist for NASA's Human
held assignments in the integration of all US in Mission Planning and Analysis Division after Research Program at Johnson Space Center. Principal
international partner systems in the ISS Program at graduating from the University of Texas. Flight investigator for several investigations into the changes
NASA. PhD, University of Rochester. Mechanics and Trajectory Design. Joined NASA in in the cardiovascular system. PhD in Physiology and
1987 as an engineer in the guidance analysis section Biophysics, University of Kentucky.
Bains, Elizabeth – PhD. Leads engineering analysis
of Mission Planning and Analysis Division.
of Shuttle Robotic Arm operations. Co-chairs a panel Christian, Carol – PhD. Deputy of the Community
overseeing Shuttle Robotic Arm model accuracy. Buning, Pieter – PhD. Joined NASA in 1979 as a Missions Office and an astronomer at the Space
Worked in many areas of Shuttle Robotic Arm researcher in computational fluid dynamics. Telescope Science Institute at Baltimore, Maryland.
software, from testing simulation dynamics models to Developed computational tools for aerospace vehicles Served as head of the Office of Public Outreach for
requirements definition and verification testing for the from helicopters and commercial airliners to Hubble Space Telescope for many years, and has
arm control software. hypersonic research vehicles and the shuttle, first at researched stellar populations in nearby galaxies.
NASA Ames Research Center and then at NASA
Baldwin, Kenneth – PhD. Professor at University Christiansen, Eric – PhD. NASA Micro-Meteoroid
Langley Research Center.
of California, Irvine. Principal investigator for four and Orbital Debris (MMOD) Protection lead at
shuttle missions and numerous ground-based NASA Burkholder, Jonathan – Engineer in the Damage Johnson Space Center. Holds a patent for the
research projects. Muscle team lead for the National Tolerance Assessment Branch at Marshall Space Stuffed-Whipple shield used extensively on the
Space Biomedical Research Institute for 8 years. Flight Center (MSFC). Technical secretary of the International Space Station. Developed a number of
MSFC Fracture Control Board. BS in Mechanical design and operational methods to reduce MMOD
Barger, Laura – Instructor in medicine at Harvard
Engineering, University of Alabama in Huntsville. risk to NASA spacecraft.
Medical School. Associate physiologist at Brigham
and Women's Hospital. Co-principal investigator of Burns, Bradley – More than 20 years experience at Coglitore, Sebastian – Brigadier General, retired
the sleep study conducted aboard shuttle flights from Kennedy Space Center developing ground support from US Air Force. Program manager of the first
2000-2011. Conducted sleep studies on the equipment and shop aids for the Space Shuttle Department of Defense spacecraft to fly on the
International Space Station. Program. BS in Electrical Engineering, University of Space Shuttle.
Central Florida.
Bauer, Paul – Thermal analyst at ATK. Led the Cohen, Aaron – Worked for NASA from 1962-1993.
Reusable Solid Rocket Motor Carbon Fiber Rope Butler, Jim – Writer for United Space Alliance at Served as center director (1986-1993), then returned
implementation team. Worked in design engineering Marshall Space Flight Center. Managed writing to Texas A&M University to a distinguished
for Electronic Specialty, producer of space-bound assignments for Computer Sciences Corporation, engineering chair. MS in Applied Math, the Stevens
relays and switches. BS in Mechanical Engineering, Intergraph, and the US Army prior to joining the Institute of Technology.
Washington State University. NASA team. BA in English and History, University of
Collins, David – Deputy associate director of
Alabama in Huntsville.
Becker, Perry – NASA, chief of the Engineering Technology Development and chief of the
Directorate Ground Systems Structures Mechanisms. Campbell, Charles – PhD. Began career with Johnson Instrumentation Section for Development Engineering
Twenty-five years of service. Served as crawler Space Center in 1987 as a cooperative education at Kennedy Space Center. MS in Electrical
systems engineer, transporting over 100 shuttles to the student, joining the Engineering Directorate in 1990 Engineering, Georgia Tech.
launch pad. Master’s degree in Mechanical after graduating from the University of Minnesota
Connolly, Janis – Project manager for NASA’s Human
Engineering, and an MBA. with a bachelor’s degree. Became the lead for Orbiter
Research Program and its Space Human Factors
aerothermodynamics as the NASA subsystem
Beek, Joachim – Manages the NASGRO project. Engineering Project at Johnson Space Center. MS in
engineer in 2003.
Member of the Fracture Control Board at Johnson Architecture, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Space Center. MS in Aerospace Engineering, Texas Captain, Janine – Works for NASA at Kennedy Cort, Robert – Associate manager-technical at NASA
A&M University. Space Center (since 2005), focusing on in-situ
White Sands Test Facility. Began working on ground
resource utilization technologies and sensors for
Bell, Bradley – Responsibilities include development testing of Space Shuttle Orbiter Maneuvering System
field deployment. PhD in Chemistry, Georgia
and maintenance of the visual simulation systems and reaction control subsystems in 1987, and managed
Institute of Technology.
used in astronaut training, including the rendering repair and overhaul of flight hardware for those
software and the helmet-mounted display hardware at Caron, Dan – Curriculum specialist for Engineering systems/subsystems at White Sands Test Facility.
Johnson Space Center. by Design. Teaches aerospace/technology education
Cragun, Brad – ATK scientist. Formulated propellants
at Kingswood Regional High School in Wolfeboro,
Blumberg, Baruch – Professor at Fox Chase Cancer and pyrotechnics for ATK’s Castor 120® rocket motor
New Hampshire. Led the NASA Educational
Center, Pennsylvania. Former director NASA and Boeing’s Sea Lance missile. Inducted into the
Workshops at Goddard Space Flight Center and
Astrobiology Institute. Received the 1976 Nobel Prize Space Technology Hall of Fame for developing a
Wallops Flight Facility (1997-1999).
in Medicine for identification of hepatitis B virus. demining flare based on shuttle propellant technology.
MD from Columbia, New York. Carpenter, Bradley – Works in the Space Operations Graduate of Weber State University.
Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters. Lead
scientist in the Microgravity Research Division of
NASA from 1996-2005. PhD in Chemical
Engineering, Stanford University.
536 Appendix
Contributers’ Biographies
Cross, Jeffrey – Aeronautical engineer involved in Feeback, Daniel – Head of the Muscle Research Gaylor, Stephen – Began career with Rockwell
rotorcraft flight research for 16 years. Public outreach Laboratory, Johnson Space Center, until 2010. Shuttle Operations and joined NASA in 1990. Was
lead and visitor center curator for 10 years. Member Adjunct associate professor, Department of responsible for shuttle flight definition and mission
of the NASA Ames Research Center’s Office of Biochemistry, Institute of Biosciences Bioengineering performance analysis. Served as a flight manager in
Education for 3 years. at Rice University. PhD, University of Oklahoma. the Space Shuttle Program. Degree in Mechanical
Engineering, Texas A&M University.
Crucian, Brian – Senior scientist with Wyle Fiorucci, Tony – Aerospace engineer at Marshall
Laboratories at Johnson Space Center. Expertise in Space Flight Center. Responsible for vibration Gibson, Cecil – Began career at the Army Ballistic
spaceflight-associated immune dysregulation, flow analysis and redline methodology algorithm Missile Agency. Transferred to Johnson Space Center
cytometry assay development, and immunology development and integration for the Space Shuttle Propulsion and Power Division and became Apollo
research in extreme environments. PhD, University of Main Engine, Advanced Health Management System. Service Propulsion System manager and, later, Ascent
South Florida. BS in Engineering Science, University of Tennessee. Engine manager. Supervised propulsion development
and mission activities for the Space Shuttle and
Curtis, Glen – ATK program manager over Reusable Fish, Ozzie – Works in the NASA Instrumentation
station until he retired.
Solid Rocket Motor supply chain, process control, Branch. Has served as a Hazardous Warning System
and program transition. Twenty-two-year career has engineer since 1988. BS in Electrical Engineering, Gnoffo, Peter – Senior research engineer in the
included duties as a proposal manager, supervisor in University of Central Florida. Aerothermodynamics Branch at Langley Research
industrial engineering, and manager of budgets, Center. Has worked in the area of computational
Fitts, David – Chief, Habitability and Human Factors
proposals, and training for operations. Space Shuttle aerothermodynamics since joining NASA in 1974.
Branch in Johnson Space Center’s Space Life
Program Star Award.
Sciences Directorate (2003-present). An architect by Gomez, Reynaldo – Member of Johnson Space Center
Czeisler, Charles – PhD, MD, the Baldino Professor formal education, he focused on NASA becoming a Engineering Directorate since May 1985, after
of Sleep Medicine, and director of the Division of product-based and design-solution organization. graduating from Rice University. Space Shuttle Ascent
Sleep Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Chief of Aerosciences Technical Panel chairman since 1993.
Flores, Rose – Led the Shuttle Remote Manipulator
the Division of Sleep Medicine at Brigham and
System analysis, flight hardware and software Greene, Ben – Engineering project manager for the
Women's Hospital. Principal investigator of multiple
activities for the Flight Robotic Systems Branch at Reinforced Carbon-Carbon Repair Team at Johnson
sleep studies.
Johnson Space Center. Co-chaired the Robotics Space Center (JSC). Has been developing
DeTroye, Jeff – Works for the CIA (2003-present). Analysis Working Group and was the shuttle robotics extravehicular activity tools and equipment at JSC for
Worked for NASA (1985-1998). Commander of the chief engineer. MS in Systems Engineering. spacewalking astronauts for 15 years. BS in
National Reconnaissance Office Aerospace Defense Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston.
Fogarty, Jennifer – Innovation and development lead
Facility – East. Officer in US Air Force (1977-1985).
for Johnson Space Center Space Life Sciences. PhD Grogan, James – Colonel, retired, US Air Force.
MS, University of Houston-Clear Lake.
in Cardiovascular Research, Texas A&M University.
Hale, Wayne – Shuttle flight director for 41 missions
Ding, Robert – Welding engineer at NASA Marshall Folensbee, Al – Worked at Kennedy Space Center, at Johnson Space Center. Kennedy Space Center
Space Flight Center (MSFC). Currently works in the
performing and overseeing the development, shuttle launch integration manager, shuttle deputy
Material and Processes Laboratory at MSFC in
automation, and testing of ground application software program manager, and Space Shuttle Program
welding process development. Master’s degree in
for the Space Shuttle Program. Master’s degree in manager. MS in Engineering, Purdue University.
Engineering Management.
Computer Science, Florida Institute of Technology.
Hall, Jennifer – More than 20 years of technical and
Dolman, Everett – PhD. Professor of Comparative Forman, Royce – Served as the primary NASA managerial experience at Kennedy Space Center.
International Studies at the US Air Force’s School of
technical expert at Johnson Space Center on fracture Deputy director of the Florida Program Office. BS in
Advanced Air and Space Studies. Formerly an
control and fracture mechanics technology, initiated Industrial Engineering, University of Central Florida.
intelligence analyst, National Security Agency.
formation and co-chaired the NASA Fracture Control MBA, Florida Tech.
Published works include Astropolitik, The Warrior
Methodology Panel, and performed the majority of
State, and Pure Strategy. Hallett, Charles – Worked for 20 years with
fracture mechanics experimental efforts at the center.
manufacturing systems in New York and started at
Dorsey, Geminesse – Mechanical engineer at Forth, Scott – Chairs the Johnson Space Center Kennedy Space Center in 1990. Introduced many
Johnson Space Center. Worked as a test director and
Fracture Control Board and works with the pressure standard manufacturing concepts to shuttle business
technical area lead of the Battery Systems Test
vessel for manned spaceflight. PhD in Mechanical processes and has been Collaborative Integrated
Facility in the Energy Systems Test Area. Worked on
Engineering, Clarkson University. Processing Solutions project manager since its
numerous test programs to certify and evaluate
inception. Graduated from University of Buffalo.
batteries used on-orbit. Fowler, Michael – Worked as a materials engineer at
Johnson Space Center for 23 years. PhD in Chemical Hamel, Michael – Lieutenant General, retired,
Drake, Daniel – United Space Alliance, lead Engineering, University of Texas. US Air Force.
mechanical engineer. Twenty-six years of service
at Kennedy Space Center. Primarily responsible for Fraley, John – Has worked at Kennedy Space Harris, Yolanda – Technical representative for the
the hydraulic systems of the crawlers. Holds Center for 32 years. Served as an Apollo Structural Marshall Space Flight Center Ares First Stage Office.
certifications as driver, jacking console operator, Systems engineer in spacecraft operations, then as Served as technical assistant to the Space Shuttle
and local test conductor. chief, Orbiter Structures, Handling Access Systems Program deputy manager for propulsion. Juris Doctor
Section. BS in Mechanical Engineering, University Degree, University of Alabama.
Ecord, Glenn – Materials Branch, Engineering of Kentucky.
Directorate at Johnson Space Center. Served as Hayes, Judith – Exercise physiologist at Johnson
integration technical manager for Fracture Control Frandsen, Jon – Engineer with Pratt & Whitney Space Center. Deputy division chief, Human
and for Pressure Vessels and Pressurized Systems, Rocketdyne, working with the Space Shuttle Main Adaptation & Countermeasures. Master of
Orbiter, and payloads. Engine (SSME). Specialized in fracture mechanics Public Health. MS in Exercise Physiology, West
and hydrogen embrittlement materials testing as they Virginia University.
Faile, Gwyn – Former chief of the Marshall Space relate to the SSME. MS, UCLA.
Flight Center Structural Integrity Branch. Served as Helms, Bill – Retired NASA physicist, 35 years
co-chair of the NASA Fracture Control Analytical Galvez, Roberto – Started career at NASA as a shuttle Kennedy Space Center (KSC) designing launch
Methodology Panel. Currently works for the Qualis flight controller in the Guidance, Navigation & complex instrumentation for the Space Shuttle and
Corporation on the Jacobs Engineering team Control Systems. Served as manager of the Space the Hazardous Gas Detection System. Managed KSC
supporting the Marshall Space Flight Center Damage Shuttle Program Flight Management Office. BS in Instrumentation Development Labs for 20 years.
Tolerant Assessment Branch. Electrical Engineering, Louisiana State University.
Herron, Marissa – Began career at Johnson Space
Feagan, Carole-Sue – Twenty-five years management Gardze, Eric – Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne Kennedy Center in 2000 as a flight controller in the Flight
and human resource experience in private industry. Space Center (KSC) senior engineering manager. Design and Dynamics Division. MS in Aerospace
Came to Kennedy Space Center in 2008 to support Supported Space Shuttle Main Engine since 1973. Engineering, University of Colorado at Boulder.
the director of vehicle operations, planning Supported combustion devices development at
development with United Space Alliance. Joined a Canoga Park, California, the first engine hot fire
contractor in support of the NASA chief engineer of testing at Stennis Space Center, and launch operations
launch vehicle processing. at KSC since STS-1.
Appendix 537
Contributers’ Biographies
Herst, Terri – More than 26 years of shuttle processing James, John – PhD in Pathology and a Diplomat of Kelly, Mark – Captain, US Navy. NASA astronaut.
technical and managerial experiences at Kennedy the American Board of Toxicology. NASA chief Assigned to command crew of STS-134 (2011).
Space Center. Serves as Shuttle Project Engineer and toxicologist at Johnson Space Center. NASA Commander on STS-124 (2008). Pilot on STS-121
is responsible for leading integrated technical issues to Exceptional Service Medal and Shuttle Star Award. (2006) and STS-108 (2001). Has received several
resolution during the launch countdown. Authored or co-authored more than 100 articles and awards and honors. MS in Aeronautical Engineering,
numerous book chapters. US Naval Postgraduate School.
Hess, David – Director, Department of Defense
(DoD) Human Space Flight Payloads Office, Johnson Johnson, Dexer – Began career with Rockwell Killpack, Michael – Manages the analytical chemistry
Space Center. Responsible for all actions related to Shuttle Operations and joined NASA Johnson Space department within the ATK Launch Systems research
access to space aboard human-rated spacecraft on Center in 1989 in the Cargo Integration Office. and development laboratory in Promontory, Utah,
DoD’s behalf. Served as technical monitor representative for the where he has been employed for more than 10 years.
Shuttle Middeck Integration contract. BS in Physics, Prior to joining ATK, retired as a Lieutenant Colonel
Hill, Arthur – Member of the Pratt & Whitney
Michigan State University. following a 20-year career with the US Air Force.
Rocketdyne technical staff since 1975. Led the
development and implementation of the Space Shuttle Johnson, Steve – PhD. Professional Engineer. Kirazes, John – Chief of the Communications and
Main Engine instrumentation system for over 30 Member of Space Radiation Analysis Group, which is Tracking Branch at Kennedy Space Center. Started
years. BS in Electrical Engineering, UCLA. responsible for radiation monitoring and operational working on shuttle navigation systems with NASA in
support in mission control for shuttle and International 1985. MS in Electrical Engineering, Florida Institute
Hill, Paul – Director of Mission Operations for Space
Space Station (ISS) missions. Participated in radiation of Technology.
Shuttle and International Space Station at Johnson
investigations conducted on shuttle, Mir, and ISS
Space Center. MS in Aerospace Engineering, Texas Kirk, Benjamin – Joined the Aerosciences & Flight
during his 20 years at Johnson Space Center.
A&M University. Mechanics Division at Johnson Space Center in 2003.
Hilsenrath, Ernest – PhD. Retired from Goddard Jones, Samuel – Division chief engineer for the Heavily supported Thermal Protection System repair
Space Shuttle. Mechanical engineer at Johnson Space technique development and implementation for the
Space Flight Center (GSFC). Served as principal
Center in the Energy Systems Division. During 35 Orbiter. PhD in Aerospace Engineering.
investigator for several remote sensing satellite and
years experience, has served as test manager in the
shuttle missions of the Earth’s atmosphere and was Kloeris, Vickie – Food scientist with a concentration in
Energy Systems Test Area for test programs
director of GSFC’s Radiometric Calibration and food microbiology. Manager of the Space Food
involving pyrotechnic devices, fuel cell components,
Development Laboratory. Systems Laboratory at Johnson Space Center.
and cryogenics.
Manages the International Space Station food system.
Hirko, John – Worked on Kennedy Space Center’s
Operational Intercommunication System – Digital
Jordan, Coy – ATK design engineer. Responsible for Additionally, managed the shuttle food system
the nozzle flexible bearing and bearing Thermal (1989-2005). MS, Texas A&M University.
(OIS-D) development team starting in 1987.
Protection System for the Reusable Solid Rocket
Contributed to design, build, integration, testing, Knight, Jack – Forty years hands-on and
Motor and the Ares rocket motor. Employed with
installation, operation, and troubleshooting throughout management experience in human spaceflight
Raytech Corporation, prior to ATK. BS in Mechanical
OIS-D’s 21-year history at that center. Graduated from programs at Johnson Space Center. Includes
Engineering, Arizona State University.
University of Pittsburgh’s School of Engineering. spaceflight operations procedures and planning,
Hoblit, Jeffrey – Has served as the contractor task Jorgensen, Glenn – Worked on the Shuttle Robotic real-time vehicle command and control, and facility
Arm with Spar Aerospace as a systems engineer and development project management for simulators and
lead of Johnson Space Center’s Integrated
then a project manager. Participated in design mission control centers.
Extravehicular Activity Radiation Monitoring Virtual
upgrades to the arm and has supported shuttle
Reality Laboratory since the mid 1990s. BS in Kobrick, Michael – PhD. Senior scientist at NASA’s
missions throughout the program. Assigned as
Aerospace Engineering, University of Cincinnati. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California.
subsystem manager for the Shuttle Robotic Arm with
Served as the director of the Shuttle Radar
Holland, Albert – PhD. Senior operations psychologist NASA in 2007.
Topography Mission.
at Johnson Space Center. Worked with astronauts and
their families for over 25 years, including during the
Jue, Fred – Performs strategic analysis and business Koontz, Steven – PhD. Works in the Materials and
development for the Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne
Shuttle-Mir Program, International Space Station, and Processes Branch at Johnson Space Center. System
Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) program. Began
analog environments such as winter over in manager and expert for spaceflight environment
career with Rocketdyne as an SSME turbomachinery
Antarctica. Credited with numerous publications. effects on spacecraft performance.
engineer. Served as resident manager for development
Homan, David – Manager of the Integrated of the alternate turbopumps at the Pratt & Whitney Kosmo, Joseph – Senior project engineer in the
Extravehicular Activity Robotics Virtual Reality Florida facility. Extravehicular Activity & Space Suit Systems Branch
Simulation Facility at Johnson Space Center. BS in at Johnson Space Center. Started career at the
Mechanical Engineering, Iowa State University.
Kahl, Bob – Director of Palmdale Shuttle Operations NASA-Langley Space Task Group in 1961. Involved
for Boeing Explorations, and part of the Space Shuttle
in design, development, and testing of all major
Horvath, Thomas – Senior research engineer in the Program since 1975. Operations director of Orbiter
spacesuit assemblies, from Mercury to the
Research Technology Directorate at Langley Research Assembly Test and Logistic Spares (1997-present).
International Space Station Program.
Center, where he has worked since 1989. Primary area
of expertise includes experimental research to
Kauffman, Larry – Director of California Operations Kuo, Y.M. – PhD. Modeler of dynamics of on-orbit
for Boeing Space Exploration. Part of the Space
determine and optimize the aerodynamic systems, particularly manipulators, including
Shuttle Program since 1979. Associate program
characteristics and heating environments for certification of the Shuttle Robotic Arm model that
director of Orbiter production (1996-2000).
aerospace vehicles. added capabilities such as constrained motion and end
Howell, Patricia – Aerospace engineer with 20 years Kaupp, Henry – Part of the NASA team that effector dynamics. Leads analyses of manipulator
evaluated Canadian ability to build the Shuttle on-orbit performance at Johnson Space Center.
of experience in nondestructive evaluation research at
Robotic Arm. Followed the shuttle arm development
NASA Langley Research Center, specializing in Lamb, Holly – Manager of community relations
and supported early missions. Served as shuttle
thermal modeling and data analysis for defect for aerospace and defense manufacturer ATK.
division chief engineer for the Robotics Division, and
detection methods. NASA’s Silver Snoopy Award. Oversees efforts to inspire the next generation of
was prime point of contact for the Shuttle Robotic
NASA Exceptional Achievement Medal. scientists and engineers through education outreach
Arm until his retirement.
initiatives. Degree in Professional Writing, Carnegie
Huss, Terry – Senior materials and processes engineer
for United Space Alliance. Responsibilities include
Kaye, Jack – PhD. Associate director for research, Mellon University.
Earth Science Division, NASA Headquarters.
automation and robotic process development for Lane, Helen – Registered Dietician. Served as lead for
Program scientist for Atmospheric Laboratory of
shuttle and Ares Solid Rocket Booster elements. Johnson Space Center for nutritional biochemistry
Applications and Science missions, Cryogenic
Graduate of the University of Colorado at Boulder’s laboratory, clinical research laboratories, branch chief,
Infrared Spectrometers & Telescopes for the
Aerospace Engineering Program. engineering interface, and manager of University
Atmosphere-Shuttle Palette Satellite, Mediterranean
Research and Affairs. Research focus is nutrition and
Israeli Dust Experiment, and Solar Shuttle
biochemistry. PhD in Nutrition, University of Florida.
Backscatter Ultraviolet Experiment.
538 Appendix
Contributers’ Biographies
LeBeau, Gerald – Joined Johnson Space Center as a Lumpkin, Forrest – Began career at NASA Ames Meinhold, Anne – Principal senior engineer with
cooperative education student in 1987. Focus of Research Center in 1990. Joined Johnson Space Center International Trade Bridge, Inc. MS in Environmental
career was in the area of computational aerosciences, 1994. Career has focused on rarefied gas dynamics Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
specializing in the development and application of emphasizing on plumes. PhD, Stanford University.
Merceret, Francis – Director of research for the
rarefied gas dynamics tools. Served as the chief of the
Madura, John – Over 29 years of weather analysis Kennedy Space Center Weather Office. Specializes
Applied Aeroscience and Computational Fluid
and research experiences working both for NASA and in meteorological observation and data analysis
Dynamics Branch since 2006.
the Air Force. Serves as manager for the Kennedy with emphasis on winds and lightning. Authored
Leckrone, David – Part of the Hubble Space Telescope Space Center weather office. MS in Meteorology, over 100 professional papers (more than 40
Project since 1976, first as scientific instruments University of Michigan. peer-reviewed). PhD in Atmospheric Physics, Johns
project scientist, then deputy senior project scientist, Hopkins University.
Manning, Samantha – Assistant launch vehicle
and later as chief engineer. Lead project scientist at
processing chief engineer. Worked at Johnson Space Miller, Glenn – Senior technical expert working
Johnson Space Center "mission control" during the
Center for 5 years before going to Kennedy Space structural design projects. Began career at Johnson
Hubble servicing missions (1993, 1997, 1999, 2008).
Center. Worked Main Propulsion and Max Launch Space Center in 1984 as structural engineer in the
PhD in Astronomy, UCLA.
Abort System for 2 years each. Degree in field of structural analysis and certification. BS in
Leger, Lubert – Served as chief of the Materials Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University.
Branch, Engineering Directorate at Johnson University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Miralles, Evelyn – Principal software engineer
Space Center.
Martin, Fred – Orbiter NASA subsystem engineer for of the Virtual Reality Laboratory, an astronaut
Levin, Zev – PhD. The J. Goldemberg chair professor aerodynamics, and Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics training facility, at Johnson Space Center. BS in
in Atmospheric Physics. Principal investigator of the Division chief engineer for aerosciences. Began Computer Science.
Mediterranean Israeli Dust Experiment on board the career at Johnson Space Center in 1980. Led the
Mizell, Richard – Associate director for Management
Space Shuttle Columbia on its last flight. Served as development of the Space Shuttle Launch Vehicle
Launch Vehicle Processing Directorate at Kennedy
dean of research and vice president of research at Tel computational fluid dynamics analysis (1989-1993).
Space Center. Worked at NASA for more than 20
Aviv University, Israel.
McArthur, Cynthia – Lead for Teaching From Space, years as a systems engineer on various flight and
Lewis, Marilyn – EdD. Education Specialist with a NASA K-12 education office located in the ground systems, including 10 years on the Hazard
WILL Technology, Inc. working in support of the Astronaut Office at Johnson Space Center. Teaching Warning Systems beginning during the Main
Marshall Space Flight Center Office of Human From Space facilitates on-orbit education Propulsion System leaks in 1990.
Capital contract. Coordinates Minority University opportunities that use the unique environment of
Modlin, Tom – Worked at Johnson Space Center in
Research and Education Projects for the Marshall spaceflight, including in-flight education downlinks
structural analysis. Supported the Mercury, Gemini,
Academic Affairs Office. and education payload operations.
Apollo, and Space Shuttle Programs as a structural
Limero, Thomas – Johnson Space Center Toxicology McClellan, Wayne – Lead system engineer for analysis expert. Served as the chief of the Structural
Laboratory supervisor (1990-present). Expert in ground instrumentation and controls at Kennedy Mechanics Branch.
measurement of trace volatile organics in closed Space Center. BS in Electrical Engineering, Florida
Moore, Gilbert – Retired Thiokol engineer, Utah
environments. Served as lead scientist for Atlantic University.
State physics professor, and US Air Force Academy
development of several spacecraft air quality monitors.
McCormick, Patrick – PhD. Professor and co-director, astronautics professor, where he helped develop
PhD in Analytical Chemistry, University of Houston.
Center for Atmospheric Sciences, Hampton the cadet satellite program. Director of Project
Lingbloom, Mike – Served as lead ATK engineer for University. Principal investigator for series of Earth Starshine. Served as lead for the first canister of Get
Reusable Solid Rocket Motor optically simulated science satellite experiments. Co-principal Away Special experiments and first Space Shuttle
electron emission technology. Holds Level III investigator for Apollo-Soyuz Stratospheric Aerosol student satellite.
certifications in magnetic particle, liquid penetrant, Measurement and Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared
Moore, Dennis – Chief engineer for Space Shuttle
and laser shearography via the American Society for Pathfinder Satellite Observation experiments.
Reusable Solid Rocket Motor at Marshall Space
Nondestructive Testing. Associate of Science degree
McGill, Preston – Structural materials engineer in the Flight Center. MS, University of Alabama.
in Electronic Technology.
Damage Tolerance Assessment Branch at Marshall
Morgan, Barbara – Mission specialist and teacher in
Locke, James – Joined NASA in 1999 as a flight Space Flight Center (MSFC). Serves on the MSFC
space on STS-118. Worked as an elementary school
surgeon. Has worked in the NASA Flight Medicine Fracture Control Board. Doctorate in Civil
teacher in Idaho and educator in residence at Boise
Clinic at Johnson Space Center, and served as a crew Engineering, Auburn University.
State University.
surgeon on numerous shuttle and International Space
McKelvey, Timothy – NASA lead computer Moser, Thomas – Held key positions at Johnson Space
Station missions. MD, University of Wisconsin
engineer for the Launch Processing System. Has
Medical School. Completed medical residencies in Center, including head of structural design, deputy
worked at Kennedy Space Center since 1987. BS
Emergency Medicine and Aerospace Medicine. manager Orbiter Project, director of engineering,
in Electrical Engineering, University of South
deputy associate administrator for spaceflight and
Loveall, James – Has served as the division chief Florida. MS in Engineering Management, Florida
space station, and director of Space Station Program at
engineer for shuttle flight software in the Johnson Institute of Technology.
Headquarters. MS, University of Pennsylvania.
Space Center Engineering Directorate since 2003.
McPeters, Richard – PhD. Atmospheric physicist at Muratore, John – Teaches at University of Tennessee
Serves as deputy branch chief for the Operational
Goddard Space Flight Center. Closely involved in the
Space Systems Integration Branch in the Avionic Space Institute. Supported the Space Shuttle for 28
measurement of ozone from space from a series of
Systems Division. years, both with the US Air Force and NASA. Worked
Task Order Management System and Solar
at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Kennedy Space
Lucid, Shannon – Flew on STS-51G, STS-34, Backscatter Ultraviolet Instrument since the 1970s.
Center, and Johnson Space Center. Served as manager
STS-43, STS-57, STS-76, and STS-79, and spent
Medelius, Pedro – Has worked at Kennedy Space of Space Shuttle Systems Engineering and Integration
6 months on Russian space station Mir. Was one
Center for 18 years—last 7 years with ASRC following Columbia accident.
of seven women chosen for the first astronaut class
Aerospace Corporation. Responsible for research and
that accepted women. PhD in Biochemistry, Nickerson, Cheryl – PhD. Associate professor at The
development activities in various aerospace-related
University of Oklahoma. Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University. An
areas, applied physics, and real-time signal
expert in mechanisms of microbial pathogenesis.
Lulla, Kamlesh – PhD. Served as chief scientist processing. PhD, University of Florida.
Pioneered discovery of molecular genetic and
for Earth Observations and Astronaut Training in
Mehta, Satish – Senior scientist at the Microbiology virulence changes in Salmonella and other pathogens
Earth Observations for the Space Shuttle and the
Department of Johnson Space Center. Since 1992, his in response to spaceflight.
International Space Station. Conducted experiments
research focused on reactivation and shedding of
in human-directed remote sensing and technology
Herpes viruses in space and space analogs. PhD, Guru
development at Johnson Space Center for the
Nanak Dev University.
past 23 years.
Appendix 539
Contributers’ Biographies
Nickolenko, Peter – Has worked at Kennedy Space Pham, Chau – Johnson Space Center Crew and Ruiz, Jose – Guidance, Navigation, & Control
Center for more than 20 years in shuttle processing System Division chief engineer for Orbiter engineer at Johnson Space Center. Supported
operations. Launch director for STS-127 and STS-128. Environment Control and Life Support Systems. BS rendezvous operations for four shuttle missions in
Served in both technical and managerial positions in Aerospace Engineering, University of Texas. 2007 and 2008 from Mission Control. MS in
planning launch and landing operations. Degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute
Pierson, Duane – NASA’s senior microbiologist at
Engineering from Military Academy-West Point. of Technology.
Johnson Space Center. Agency’s expert on the many
Norbraten, Lee – Joined NASA in 1967 as an Apollo microbiological aspects of spaceflight. PhD, Russo, Dane – PhD. Scientist-manager at Johnson
mission designer at Johnson Space Center. Led Oklahoma State University. Space Center/Space Life Sciences Directorate. For
project teams to improve ascent structural safety more than 30 years, managed the Space Human
Pilet, Jeffrey – Chief Engineer for Lockheed
margins, payload capability, and launch probability Factors and Habitability Element and the Advanced
Martin Michoud Assembly Facility on the External
for the International Space Station during the shuttle Human Support Technology Program.
Tank Project.
era. MS in Mathematics, University of Houston.
Platts, Steven – Head of the Cardiovascular Research Sams, Clarence – PhD. Biochemist. Director of
O'Neill, Patrick – Has worked in the design and Laboratory at Johnson Space Center. PhD in
Johnson Space Center Immunology Laboratories.
analysis of Guidance, Navigation, & Control Systems Scientific and technical lead (element scientist) for
Cardiovascular Physiology, Texas A&M University.
at Johnson Space Center. Served as "Radiation Effects the International Space Station Medical Project.
Postdoctoral Fellowship, University of Virginia.
scientist," responsible for planning radiation testing,
Richmond, Dena – Employed by United Space Sauer, Richard – NASA inventor of the year for the
modeling natural space radiation environments, and
microbial check valve that resulted in a patent and
predicting radiation effects on performance of systems. Alliance on the Collaborative Integrated
license. Major contributor to providing safe water for
Processing Solutions team and is a Solumina subject
Ott, Mark – PhD. Microbiologist. Supports spaceflight matter expert.
shuttle crews as the Johnson Space Center lead for the
program operations at Johnson Space Center water laboratory and deputy branch chief. He has
Microbiology Laboratory. Extensive experience in the Ride, Sally – PhD. NASA astronaut. First American numerous publications.
assessment of infectious disease risk to the crew woman to fly in space. Flew on STS-7 and STS-41G.
President of Sally Ride Science – a company that
Saunders, Melanie – Associate director, Johnson
during spaceflight missions.
Space Center. Served as a member of the NASA
promotes education in science, technology,
Paloski, William – Professor of Health and Human engineering, and mathematics.
negotiation teams for the International Space Station.
Performance at the University of Houston. Spent 23 Main author of the barters for shuttle launch of the
years as a neurosciences researcher at Johnson Space Ring, Richard – Employed with United Space European and Japanese labs, the Balance of
Center, studying sensory-motor adaptation to Alliance. More than 25 years in the aerospace Contributions with Russia, and the Code of Conduct
spaceflight. PhD in Biomedical Engineering, industry as a design engineer. for Space Station Crew. Juris Doctor, University of
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Rivera, Jorge – Deputy chief engineer for shuttle California, Davis.
Patrick, Nancy – Started as a NASA shuttle contractor processing. More than 28 years of technical and Scarpa, Jack – Manager of the Productivity
in 1983 in the Mission Operations Directorate after managerial experiences at Kennedy Space Center. Enhancement Materials Development at Marshall
graduating from the University of Notre Dame. Joined BS in Industrial Engineering, University of Puerto Space Flight Center. Responsibilities included design,
NASA in 1990 as an assembly planner for the Rico – Mayaguez. materials development, and testing of Thermal
International Space Station. Worked in the Roberson, Luke – His research at NASA deals with Protection System materials and non-metallic
Extravehicular Activity (EVA) office as EVA staff the development, application, and evaluation of materials for the shuttle Solid Rocket Booster.
engineer (1996–2008). conductive polymers, microelectronic devices, and Schneider, William – Expertise in mathematical
Payne, Stephen – NASA Payload Operations, nanocomposite polymeric materials. PhD, Georgia engineering mechanics, structural and mechanical
Discovery lead for Kennedy Space Center Vehicle Institute of Technology. design, spacecraft entry Thermal Protection Systems,
Integration Test Team office, NASA test director, Roberts, Katherine – Brigadier General, retired, US and large space structures. PhD in Mechanical
ground operations manager for transatlantic abort Air Force. An original military astronaut for manned Engineering, Rice University.
landing deployments, tanking test director, and shuttle spaceflight engineering program, MSE-2, before Schuh, Joseph – Started career as part of the Orbiter
test director for eight launches. MS in Engineering program was cancelled. Electrical Engineering group and moved to supporting
Management, University of Central Florida.
Rodriguez, Alvaro – Supported the Space Shuttle the design of the Ares I and Ares V/Heavy Launch
Payton, Gary – Lieutenant General, retired, Program at Johnson Space Center as the NASA Vehicle at Kennedy Space Center.
US Air Force. Deputy, Under Secretary of Air Force subsystem engineer for the Leading Edge Structural Scobee Rogers, June – Founding chairman of
for Special Program and military payload specialist Subsystem using expertise in thermal analysis and Challenger Center for Space Sciences. Taught every
on STS-51C. testing of Thermal Protection System. Masters of grade level from kindergarten through college. Married
Pellis, Neal – Senior scientist at Johnson Space Center. Mechanical Engineering, Rice University. Dick Scobee, who perished during the Challenger
Led the Biotechnology Program and the Biological Rohan, Richard – System analyst specialist for Jacobs accident (1986). PhD, Texas A&M University.
Systems Office, and was International Space Station Technology. Worked supporting NASA for the past 22 Scott, Carl – Supported thermal protection material
Program scientist, following a 21-year career in years. Provides both 2-D and 3-D graphics and testing, aerothermodynamics, and flow diagnostics at
academics. PhD in Microbiology, Miami University. technical drawings for the Johnson Space Center Johnson Space Center Was the first to determine the
Postdoctoral fellowship at Stanford University. Flight Mechanics Laboratory, in addition to building temperature dependent catalytic atom recombination
Peralta, Steven – Technical expert on identifying and and maintaining high-performance computer clusters. on shuttle tiles. PhD in Physics, University of Texas.
controlling fire hazards in oxygen systems. Started Romere, Paul – Started career at the Manned Scully, Robert – Lead engineer of the Johnson Space
career as an engineer and project manager at NASA's Spacecraft Center (now Johnson Space Center). Part Center Electromagnetics Compatibility Group.
White Sands Test Facility in 1999. BS in Mechanical of the Shuttle Skunk Works. Served as shuttle Co-chair of the Shuttle Electromagnetic Environmental
Engineering, New Mexico State University. aerodynamics subsystem manger for 10 years. Effects (E3) Control Tech Panel, and co-lead of the
Perkins, Fred – ATK chief engineer for the Reusable Ross-Nazzal, Jennifer – Johnson Space Center Constellation Program E3 Working Group.
Solid Rocket Motor. Held leadership positions in both historian. Her biography of Emma Smith DeVoe – Smith, Sarah – Worked at Johnson Space Center
design and reliability engineering. MS in Mechanical Winning the West for Women: The Life of Emma White Sands Test Facility in oxygen hazard analysis
Engineering, University of Utah. Smith DeVoe – was published by the University of as well as in the development of tests and test systems
Pessin, Myron – Consultant with Jacobs on the ARES Washington Press. Her essay, "From Farm to Fork," for evaluating ignition and combustion of materials in
Program. Former NASA External Tank chief is included the Societal Impact of Spaceflight. oxygen-enriched environments. BS in Mechanical
engineer. Served as a Space Shuttle Main Engine PhD in History, Washington State University. Engineering, New Mexico State University.
propulsion engineer. BS in Mechanical Engineering,
Smith, Scott – Chief of Nutritional Biochemistry
Tulane University.
Laboratory at Johnson Space Center since 1992 with
research in bone metabolism. PhD in Nutrition, Penn
State University.
540 Appendix
Contributers’ Biographies
Snapp, Cooper – Supported the Space Shuttle Sumners, Carolyn – EdD. Director for Astronomy at Webb, Dennis – Served in Mission Operations at
Program at Kennedy Space Center as a thermal the Houston Museum of Natural Science. Served as Johnson Space Center in the Skylab, Space Shuttle,
protection engineer prior to becoming the NASA the principal investigator for "Toys in Space" payload International Space Station, and Constellation
subsystem engineer. Aided the development of tile on two Space Shuttle missions in 1985 and 1993. Programs. Electrical engineer from the University
inspection, analysis, and repair techniques used after of Houston. Received NASA’s Outstanding
Swanson, Gregory – PhD. Engineer in the Damage
the Columbia accident. MS in Engineering, Leadership Medal.
Tolerance Assessment Branch at Marshall Space Flight
University of Central Florida.
Center (MSFC). More than 25 years experience in Welzyn, Kenneth – Served as NASA External Tank
Sollock, Paul – Worked in human spaceflight for 42 spaceflight systems structural and fracture mechanics. chief engineer beginning with STS-121 through the
years at Johnson Space Center. Worked with the Chairs the MSFC Fracture Control Board. Co-chairs end of the Space Shuttle Program at Marshall Space
hardware and software, which eventually became the NASA Fracture Control Methodology Panel. Flight Center. MS in Mechanical Engineering,
known as Avionics. Had first hand key roles in the University of Alabama.
Tigges, Michael – Entry guidance subsystem manager
design, development, and verification of critical
for the crew exploration vehicle at Johnson Space Whipps, Patrick – Deputy project manager for the
Avionic Systems on Apollo and the Space Shuttle.
Center. Started as a NASA contractor in 1982 in the External Tank Project and resident manager at
Souza, Kenneth – Retired as the deputy director of Mission Planning and Analysis Division (MPAD) after Michoud Assembly Facility. Served as senior
space research at NASA Ames Research Center. Was graduating with an MS from Georgia Tech. Joined engineer, design integration lead, and materials and
responsible for animal and plants payloads. Served as NASA in 1985 as a guidance engineer for MPAD. processes engineer.
senior scientist for the SETI Institute and Logyx,
Trevino, Robert – Professional Engineer. Worked on White, Harold – More than a decade of experience
LLC. PhD, University of California, Berkeley.
Space Shuttle, International Space Station, and with flight hardware at Johnson Space Center. Served
Sparks, J. Scott – NASA External Tank assistant Constellation Programs’ extravehicular activity as Shuttle Remote Manipulator System subsystem
chief engineer. Served in Marshall Space Flight programs at Johnson Space Center. MS in Space manager during Return to Flight. NASA Exceptional
Center’s Materials and Processes Laboratory and Studies, University of North Dakota. Achievement Medal. PhD in Physics, Rice University.
specialized in non-metallic materials. MS, Georgia
Trevino, Luis – Thermal lead engineer in the White, Susan – Education director for Johnson Space
Institute of Technology.
Extravehicular Activity and Space Suit Systems Center’s Office of External Relations. Math educator,
Spiker, Ivan – Expert in polymer materials, Branch at Johnson Space Center. BS in Mechanical having taught at Pearland High School in Pearland,
composites, and bonding. Member of the Materials Engineering, University of Texas. Texas, for 10 years. MS in Math Education,
Branch, Johnson Space Center. University of Houston.
Ulrich, Richard – Engineer for Boeing Mission
Steinetz, Bruce – Expert on seal technology and Planning and Analysis Division at Johnson Space Whitten, Mary – Served as assistant professor of
tribology for aeronautic and space applications. Center. Developed ascent guidance software for Solid chemistry at University of the Virgin Islands prior to
Widely published, and holds 10 patents for seal Rocket Booster dispersions, Day of Launch I-load employment at Kennedy Space Center. PhD in
development work. Twenty-three years experience at Update, and First Stage Engine Out. Chemistry, Northern Illinois University.
NASA Glenn Research Center.
Upton, Avis – Software engineer at Kennedy Space Williams, Martha – Lead polymer scientist in the
Stepaniak, Philip – NASA flight surgeon and lead for Center since 1985. Oversees the development, testing, Polymer and Chemical Analysis Branch at Kennedy
the Space Shuttle Program Medical Operations at and deployment of advisory software for the Space Space Center. Principal investigator for several wire
Johnson Space Center. MD, Northeastern Ohio Shuttle Program. Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics, repair and fault detection systems activities. PhD in
University, Rootstown. Residency in aerospace and Norfolk State University. Polymer Chemistry.
emergency medicine, Wright State University, Dayton.
Van Hooser, Katherine – For 14 years, worked at Wood, David – Chief engineer for the shuttle Reusable
Stevenson, Charles – Worked for NASA for over 43 Marshall Space Flight Center on the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster since 2003. Auburn University
years. Wide range of experience in management and Main Engine (SSME) high-pressure turbopumps. graduate whose 24-year career has been dedicated to
technical direction for all engineering aspects of Served as Turbomachinery branch chief and SSME supporting NASA programs, including 20 with the
integration, test, checkout, documentation, and launch deputy chief engineer before becoming SSME chief Reusable Solid Rocket Booster.
preparation of space vehicles. Served as principal engineer in 2008. BS in Aerospace Engineering,
Young, Charles – Started career at NASA as a shuttle
advisor-coordinator and program interface. University of Tennessee (1991).
mission flight controller in the Shuttle Propulsion
Stone, Randy – Served in mission operations during Velez, Ivan – Worked for more than 31 years in the System. Managed the preliminary mission analysis
the Apollo, Skylab, Apollo Soyuz, Space Shuttle, and Mechanical Systems Division at Kennedy Space process responsible for defining the mission
International Space Station Programs. Served as flight Center in various roles. Involved in testing, repairs, parameters for each shuttle mission. Degree in
controller during the early programs, shuttle flight and flight preparations for Orbiter mechanical systems. Aerospace Engineering, Texas A&M University.
director, director of mission operations, and retired as Participated in the application of new technologies to
Young, Laurence – Apollo Program Professor of
the deputy center director at Johnson Space Center improve the flight readiness of these systems.
Astronautics and Professor of Health Sciences and
after 37 years of service.
Vellinger, John – Executive vice president and chief Technology. Principal investigator on neurovestibular
Stoltzfus, Joel – Began his career at NASA’s White operating officer of Techshot, Inc. Principal studies. Founding director of the National Space
Sands Test Facility in 1978, developing tests to ignite investigator for the shuttle student involvement Biomedical Research Institute. PhD, Massachusetts
and burn metals in high-pressure oxygen. Serves as a project that developed avian housing for shuttle. Institute of Technology.
senior technical expert on identifying and controlling
Vicker, Darby – Started engineering career in the Youngquist, Robert – Lead of the Kennedy Space
fire hazards in oxygen systems. BS in Mechanical
Applied Aeroscience and Computational Fluid Center (KSC) Applied Physics Lab. Taught at
Engineering, New Mexico State University.
Dynamics Branch at Johnson Space Center supporting University College London, then joined KSC in 1988.
Stull, Edith – Writer and editor who has worked at various programs with Computational Fluid Multiple publications and patents resulting from his
Kennedy Space Center since 1973 in technical and Dynamics analysis. Graduated from Iowa State work on the Space Shuttle Program. PhD in Applied
public affairs writing. Works for United Space University (2000). Physics, Stanford University.
Alliance. Previously worked as a magazine and
Walker, Charles – First commercial payload Zapp, Neal – PhD. Manager of the Space Radiation
newspaper writer and editor.
specialist. Was employed by McDonnell Douglas Analysis Group at Johnson Space Center.
Sullivan, Steven – Chief engineer for shuttle Astronautics Company and a member of the space International Space Station (ISS) Radiation System
processing. More than 25 years of engineering manufacturing team. Led the microgravity research manager, managing the technical baseline for
experience in Kennedy Space Center shuttle ground on STS-41D, STS-51D, and STS-61D. BS in radiation protection aboard the ISS. Background in
operations preparing the Space Shuttle for flight. MS Engineering, Purdue University. particle physics, space radiation dosimetry.
in Management, Florida Tech.
Walker, James – Member of the Nondestructive
Evaluation Team at Marshall Space Flight Center
since 1999, specializing in the field of nontraditional
nondestructive evaluation methods and composite
structures. Active member of the American Society
for Nondestructive Testing.
Appendix 541
Index
542 Index
bipod connections, ET/Orbiter, 198 Catenary Wire Lightning Instrumentation system, 91 Columbia
bipod ramp foam loss, 38 C-band radar imaging, 104, 106, 364 early O-ring problems, 33
bipropellant system for Orbital Maneuvering cell-mediated immunity, 390, 391 first missions, 12–13, 19, 20, 21, 162
System/Reaction Control System, 174, 175–176 cells and foam insulation, 28–29, 30, 37–38, 188–189,
Bird Investigation Review and Deterrent (BIRD) biology in microgravity, 418, 421–430 198–199
team, 316 peripheral mononuclear cell studies, 391, 393 impact of accident on ISS resupply, 146
bit flip problem for computers, 247 radiation effects, 450 loss of, 29, 30, 32, 35, 37–40, 146, 307
black holes, 324–325, 326–327, 331, 340 red blood cell changes in space, 385, 389–390 memorial for crew, 464
blood pressure during spaceflight, 384, 386 Centaur rocket, 24, 33, 90 post-Challenger accident missions, 24
Bluford, Guion, 462, 464 Cepheid variable stars, 329 tile losses during development, 304–305
Blumberg, Baruch, 409, 419 Certification of Flight Readiness, 85–86 weight of compared to other Orbiters, 59
“body” phantoms, 453 Challenger Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 38, 206, 306,
Body Restraint Tether, 123, 124 coordination of flights after, 99 307, 308
body temperature control in spacesuit, 114 flights of, 19–23 Columbus laboratory, 145, 146
Boeing, 314 as initial operational shuttle, 18 combustion chamber
Boeing Aerospace Operations, 23 loss of, 24, 32–36, 472 Orbital Maneuvering System, 173–174
Boeing Rigidized Insulation, 185 memorial for crew, 464 SSME, 163, 164, 210
Boeing Rocketdyne, 152 NSS response to accident, 47 combustion in microgravity, 400, 405, 440–442
Bolden, Charles, 464, 468 SRB role in accident, 24, 32, 33–34, 166, 167–168 combustion products analyzer, 398, 400
bone mass, loss of, 389–390, 416–418, 479 SSME changes after, 162 combustion stability, 163, 173, 490–491
boron/epoxy on SSME, 274 Challenger Center for Space Science Education, 471, commercial ventures
boundary layer transition, 238 472, 480, 481 and innovation, 442–443
Bowersox, Kenneth, 438, 466 Chamitoff, Gregory, 98, 101, 103, 108 materials processing, 21
breadboard, 76, 304 Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan, 340 NASA’s encouragement of, 488
Brezhnev, Leonid, 50 Chandra X-ray Observatory, 6, 25, 69, 340–341 post-Challenger accident restrictions on, 24
Bridges, Roy, 461 Chang-Diaz, Franklin, 72, 463 satellite deployments, 20
Brink, Melanie, 480 Charlesworth, Cliff, 46 Spacehab, Inc., 25, 26, 131
Brunswick Corporation, 280 checkout Common Attachment System, 138
Bugg, Charles, 434 EVA mobility unit, 107 Common Berthing Mechanism, 138
bulkhead, 272, 278, 288 ISS payloads, 79–80 communications
BUMPER computer code, 447, 448 chemical fingerprinting, SRB, 219–221 flight controllers, 96
Bunn, Wiley, 34 Chemical Products Research (CPR)-421, 194, 196 flight phase, 104–105
Buran, Soviet, 9, 51 Chemical Products Research (CPR)-488, 196 ground operations, 85
Burns, Bradley, 299 Chemochromic Point Detector, 165 implementation of digital, 304
Bursch, Dan, 413 Chiao, Leroy, 29, 263 restarting ISS, 153
Burst and Transient Source Experiment, 330, 339 Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, 82 technological innovations, 303
burst pressure, 280, 282 Chilton, Kevin, 49, 449 testing of, 76
Bush, Barbara, 24 Chinese National Satellite Meteorological Center, 348 communication satellites, 47
Bush, George H. W., 24, 27 “Chix in Space” project, 478–479 Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessels Program,
Bush, George W., 29, 38 chloride sponge problem, 315 279–282
Bush, Jeb, 40 chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), 191, 196–197, 345, 348, Compton, Arthur, 339
Bush, Laura, 38, 40 349 Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, 6, 25, 117, 330,
Cimarron Software Services, Inc., 486 339
C circadian rhythms, 376–377 computational fluid dynamics, 230–233, 308
Cabana, Robert, 150, 151, 382 Civil Rights Act (1964), 461 computer networking for launch processing, 286,
cable testing device, 493–494 Clean Air Act, 196, 198 296–301
calcium loss during spaceflight, 389 cleaning solvent development, 489 concurrent engineering philosophy, 304
caloric needs during spaceflight, 388–389 Clinton, Hillary Rodham, 466 configuration control, 306, 311–312
Calspan-University of Buffalo Research Center, 308, Clinton, William, 26, 27 Congressional Space Medal of Honor, 27
309 closed-cell foam insulation, 191 console for Launch Processing System, 296–297
Camarda, Charles, 190 Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite constant drag phase, re-entry, 240–241
Canadian Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Observations experiment, 356 constant heat-rate phase, re-entry, 238–239
satellite, 351 Cloud-to-Ground Lightning Surveillance System, consumer culture, shuttle’s influence on, 466–467
Canadian Space Agency 89, 90 contamination scanning, Thermal Protection System,
astronauts from, 121, 148, 152, 373 Coates, Keith, 33–34 180
orbital debris monitoring, 216 Coats, Michael, 160 Continuous Flow Electrophoresis System, 21, 435
Shuttle Robotic Arm, 15, 65, 287, 290 cockpit, 59 contracting consolidation (1990s), 26, 487
Space Station Robotic Arm, 137–138, 146 Cohen, Aaron, 19 Convair, 13, 16
The Cape (TV series), 466 COI Ceramics, Inc., 190 Conway, John, 34
Cape Canaveral, city of, 90, 468 Cold War and shuttle development, 42, 50–51 copper plating for hydrogen embrittlement protection,
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, 35, 87, 89, 90, 300 Coleman, Catherine, 382, 394 210
capsule communicator, 96 Coleman, Sandy, 465 corona, 454, 457
carbon-carbon composite, reinforced, 5, 107, Collaborative Integrated Processing Solutions, 264 coronal mass ejections, 454
183–184, 187–190, 204, 206–208 college level space education opportunities, 482–483 Corona satellite, 43–44
carbon fiber solution for O-rings, 193 colliding galaxies, 330 Corrective Optics for Space Telescope Axial
cardiovascular changes in space, 383–387, 403 Collins, Eileen, 25, 29, 40, 201, 341, 464 Replacement, 325
cargo integration test equipment, 79 Collins, Judy, 466 Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, 323, 334
Casselli, Henry, 465 Collins, Michael, 277 cosmological constant, 335
Cassidy, Christopher, 148 colon cancer cells in space, 423–425 “Countdown” (song), 465–466
casting segments, 78, 163, 167 Columbano, Nelson, 477–478 countdown operations, 83, 86, 103, 260
Castle, Robert, 150 counterpoise wiring for lightning protection, 91
catalycity, 183 Covey, Richard, 25, 34, 464
Index 543
Crab Nebula, 333 Direct Simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) method, Einstein, Albert, 330, 335
cranes, vertical launch integration, 80–81 232, 233 Elachi, Charles, 369
Crapnell, Martin, 478 Discovery Electrical Power Systems Laboratory, 76
Crawler Track Lube, 495 early missions, 21, 23, 160 electric field mills, 89, 91
crawler transport vehicle, 80, 81 insulation change, 186 electrocardiogram, 386, 387
crawlerway, 81 ISS missions, 30, 70, 131 electrohydrodynamic instability, 435
crew. See Astronaut Corps payload adjustment for ISS toilet parts, 102 electrolytes and fluid balance, 388
crew cabin/compartment, 59, 67–68, 101, 271, 275 post-Challenger accident missions, 24 electromagnetic compatibility, 309–310
crew escape system, 24, 82, 407 discrimination, 461, 462 Electronic Systems Test Laboratory, 76
Crew Health Stabilization Program, 377 disease prevention in space, 400–402, 415 electrophoresis and microgravity, 435, 443
crew transport, shuttle as ISS, 143–144 Dittemore, Ronald, 37 Elektron incident, 399
crew transport vehicle, 406 diversity, increase in personnel, 461–465 Ellington Field, 36, 40, 103
Crippen, Robert, 12–13, 20, 36, 44, 466 docking, 64, 70, 107, 132–133, 135–137 Elves, 353
Criticality 1 classification, 33 Dodes, Cheryl, 474 emergency egress, 25, 84, 92, 101
critical point experiments, 432–433 Doppler radar wind profiler, 93 emergency medical procedures, 404
cross-radiation, 187, 188 Dover Air Force Base, 35 emergent phenomena in physics, 431–433
cross-range capability, 14, 55, 56 drag acceleration control on re-entry, 237–241 endangered wildlife, 315
crosswind, 104 The Dream is Alive (film), 466 Endeavour
Cryogenic Infrared Radiance Instrumentation for drop (liquid) physics experiments, 438–439 construction of, 24
Shuttle (CIRRUS), 46, 47 Drop Physics Module, 439 first flight, 25
cryogenic propellants Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC), 17, 19, 36, Hubble repair backup role, 30
and External Tank, 86, 252 56, 75, 257 ISS missions, 70, 150, 152–153
instrumentation issues for SSME, 252 Dryer, Fred, 441 end effector, Shuttle Robotic Arm, 289–290
liquid hydrogen fuel, 56, 82, 86, 159, 161, 209 dual pre-burner powerhead, 159 Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope, 339
liquid oxygen oxidizer, 56, 82, 86, 159, 160–161 Dunbar, Bonnie, 399 Energia, 133
for Orbital Maneuvering System, 171 DuPont, 280 energy efficiencies, 316–317
and SSME development, 162 Duque, Pedro, 26 Engineering DOUG Graphics for Exploration
cultural impacts dust particle distribution in atmosphere, 352–353 (EDGE), 269
educational impact, 470–483 DuVal High School, 477 engineering innovations
iconic status, 2 dwarf stars, 329, 337 aerodynamics, 226–241, 308
social impact, 461–469 Dynamic Onboard Ubiquitous Graphics (DOUG) avionics system, 62, 242, 243–250, 257, 258–260
Cupola, 30 software, 265–269 instrumentation, 250–252, 309
Curbeam, Robert, 127 “Dyna Soar” space plane, 44 materials (See materials and materials science)
Currie, Nancy, 150, 151, 262 Dyson, Tracy Caldwell, 461 navigational aides, 5, 64, 242, 254–255, 265–266,
cursor control devices, improving, 394–395 267
cytomegalovirus, 392 E propulsion (See propulsion)
Eagle Nebula, 326, 332 robotics and automation, 286–301
D early sightings assessment team, 39 software support, 256–269
D-2 flight (German), 26 Earth imagery, 344, 356–359 structural design, 270–285
damage tolerance, 188–189, 282, 284 Earth Knowledge Acquired by Middle School systems engineering, 302–317, 482–483
dark energy, 334–335 Students (EarthKAM), 470, 474–475 thermal insulation (See Thermal Protection
dark matter, 27, 324, 336, 340 Earth System Science, 21, 73, 344, 360–369, Systems)
Davis, Jan, 398 474–475. See also atmosphere England, Anthony, 461
Day-of-Launch I-Load Update system, 99 Eclypse International, 493 Enterprise, 17–18, 468
DeBakey, Michael, 489 education Entry Flight Corridor, 236, 237
DeBakey VAD®, 490 bone calcium experiment, 479 environmental conditions. See also space environments
debris Challenger Centers, 471, 472, 480, 481 induced environment effects on materials,
ascent (foam insulation), 105–106, 308–309 “Chix in Space” payload, 478–479 213–218
damage inspection, 105–107, 108, 189–190, 263, college level opportunities, 482–483 ISS workplace, 148–149
446–447 EarthKAM, 470, 474–475 launch pad, 85
orbital, 105–107, 445–449 frog development in microgravity, 480 environmental issues for Space Shuttle Program, 168,
Debris Verification Review, 38 fruit fly immune system study, 479–480 195–196, 219, 315–317, 495
decompression sickness, 112, 125, 404 Get Away Specials Program, 73, 477 Environmental Protection Agency, 197
deep space probes, 24, 25, 33, 342–343 ham radio communication, 473 Epstein-Barr virus, 392
Delgado, Hugo, 465 introduction, 470–471 Equal Employment Opportunity Act (1972), 461
delta wing, 14, 43 Michael P. Anderson Engineering Outreach Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 461
DeLucas, Larry, 434 Project, 471, 472–473 Equal Pay Act (1963), 461
de-mining flare, 492 peanut butter experiment, 478 equilibrium glide phase, re-entry, 240
Department of Defense (DoD), 13, 19–20. Project Starshine, 474 escape velocity, 430
See also National Security Space (NSS) Space Experiment Module Program, 478 ESP/ESP+ reflectometers, 494
programs; specific military services Toys in Space Program, 476 ET-120 (External Tank), 38
deployable mast, 365, 366 educator astronauts, 30, 471, 472, 480, 481 European Meteorological Satellite, 348
design loads, Orbiter, 271, 272 educator workshops, 480 European Modular Cultivation System, 414
Destiny in Space (film), 466 Edwards, Dewanna, 465 European Space Agency. See also Spacelab
Destiny laboratory, 152 Edwards Air Force Base Automated Transfer Vehicle, 144, 146
Deuser, Mark, 478 as abort landing site, 56, 75 Biorack, 414
De Winne, Frank, 148 first landing, 13 Hubble solar array repair, 322
differentiation, cell, 422, 426 as planned landing site, 75, 108 ISS elements, 30, 134, 145
diffusion-bonded titanium, 274 testing of shuttle, 17, 19, 314 semiconductor crystal growth, 436
Digital Auto Pilot, 63–64, 247 Eglin Air Force Base, 194 Ulysses spacecraft, 24, 33, 343
digital communications, implementation of, 304 egress, 25, 84, 92, 101, 260 exception monitoring, 300–301
82-1 payload, 46 exercise during spaceflight, 380–383
544 Index
expansion of universe, 335–336 Feustel, Andrew, 401 Food and Drug Administration, 443, 491
Expedition 1 (ISS), 28 Feynman, Richard, 34 food quality and supply, 395–396
Expedition 5 (ISS), 148–149 FGB (Functional Cargo Block—Russian), 150 foot restraints, 124, 265, 291, 394
expendable launch vehicle vs. shuttle, 14, 24, 43, 44, Fibrous Refractory Composite Insulation, 185 Ford, Gerald, 17
323, 327 field joint innovations, SRB, 169 Foreman, Michael, 189
Extended Duration Orbiter Medical Project, 407 films, 466 45th Weather Squadron, USAF, 88–89
Extended Duration Orbiter Program, 24 Fine Guidance Sensor, Hubble, 325, 328 forward fuselage, 275, 278
external radiation, 187, 188 Fingerprinting Viewer, 220 Forward Reaction Control System, 76, 175
External Tank (ET) finite element model, 189 forward skirt, 78, 87
aluminum-lithium alloy (Al 2195), 27, 221–225 fire in microgravity, 400, 405, 440–442 forward thrusters, 63
building of, 15 Fire Protection Handbook, 491 Fossum, Michael, 98, 101, 103
and Columbia accident, 29, 30, 37–38 firing room, 80, 257, 296–299 Four-Dimensional Lightning Surveillance System, 90
and cryogenic propellants, 86, 252 Fisk, Lennard, 25, fracture control, 161, 282–285
disposal constraints, 234 fixed service structure, 81, 86, 92 France, 435, 436
ground processing, 78–79, 81, 82, 86 Fletcher, James, 14, 15, 17, 24, 462 Freedom Space Station Program, 144, 145
ice detection testing, 195 flexible bearing, SRB, 167, 281 Freedom Star SRB recovery ship, 86–87
instrumentation for, 309 flexible reusable surface insulation, 184, 186 free flights (gliding), Orbiter, 17, 448
nondestructive testing of, 204–206 Flight Computer Operating System, 246–248 friction stir welding units, 208
physical characteristics of, 56, 57 flight controllers/control team Frog Embryology Experiment, 410–411, 480
and process control, 312 diversity among, 464 front room, 96–97
redesign of, 27 EVA coordination role, 115, 127 fruit fly immune system study, 479–480
Thermal Protection System, 191–199 flight planning, 101 frustum, 87
welding improvements, 208 launch process, 104, 105 fuel cell power plants, 141, 397
extrasolar planets, 336–337 NSS mission operations, 46, 49 fuel cells consumables, Orbiter, 59
extravehicular activity (EVA) operational role of, 96, 99 Fuglesang, Christer, 143
capability for, 66 training, 96–97 Fullerton, Gordon, 461
dehydration during, 388 flight control room, 20, 96, 464 fundamental physics, 431–433
DOUG 3-D graphics software, 265–269 flight control system, 56, 62, 229, 247 funding for shuttle
early missions, 22–23 Flight Data File, 98–99 development challenges, 14–15, 16–17
energy use assessment for astronauts, 389 flight deck, 59, 67 engine-related cost saving measures, 174–175
fatigue factor for crew, 119 Flight Design Handbook, 99 ISS’s challenge to, 23
Hubble repair, 25, 118–120 flight director, 96, 464–465 reductions in 1990s, 36–37
Intelsat repair, 25 Flight Equipment Contract, 23 and systems engineering resources, 306
introduction, 110 flight inclination, 456
ISS construction and operation, 115, 124–127, Flight Inspection System, 254–255 G
141, 143 flight operations. See also landing; re-entry galactic cosmic radiation, 450, 451, 453
mission operations, 115–120 and aerodynamics, 229–230 galaxies and galaxy evolution, 27, 324, 328–329, 330
overview, 8 ascent phase, 105–106, 228–229, 233–236, 246 galaxy M87, 325, 326, 331
preparation for, 107 automation, 62, 111, 112 Galileo spacecraft, 24, 33, 342–343
reasoning for, 110–112 debris impact tracking, 105–107, 189–190 gamma-ray bursts, 330–331, 339, 340
rescue for detached crew member, 126 EVA (See extravehicular activity [EVA]) gamma-ray observatory, 6, 25, 117, 330, 339
SAFER, 126, 128, 261–262, 266 ground facilities role, 104–105 gap fillers, 30, 77, 186–187
for shuttle repairs, 30, 127–128 health care during, 406–407 Garan, Ronald, 101, 103
and Shuttle Robotic Arm, 66, 107, 115–116 introduction, 94 Gardner, Dale, 23, 116
space deconditioning problem, 380–381 launch, 103–104 Gargarin, Yuri, 12
spacesuit, 107, 112–114, 120–121 NSS vs. NASA focus on, 46 Garn, Jake, 464, 476
summary, 129 on-orbit operations, 107 Garriott, Owen, 473
tools, 121–124 planning, 95–99 gas dynamics during flight, 230–233
training for, 102, 120–121, 126–127, 261–263 returning home, 107–109 gas leak detection, 180–181
extravehicular mobility unit (spacesuit), 107, training of astronauts, 99–103 Gemini Program, 379
112–114, 120–121 flight plan, 95 gene expression in microgravity, 418, 426–427
eye-hand coordination, microgravity effects on, Flight Readiness Review, 33, 36, 104 General Dynamics, 13
373–374 Flight Rules, 97 General Electric, 441
flight simulation training, 100–101 general purpose computers, 62, 245
F flight techniques process, 97 genetic damage from space radiation, 450
Fabian, John, 49 Florida Power & Light, 316, 317 Gennady, Padalka, 148
Faga, Marty, 48 flow director, 465 geological information from radar mapping, 363
Faget, Maxime, 13 flow process, 24, 75, 86 geomagnetic protection, 456
fail-operational/fail-safe requirement, 171, 175, 244, fluid engineering for low gravity, 438–440 Geophysical Fluid Flow Cell experiment, 440
257 Fluid Processing Apparatus, 419 German Space Agency, 26, 364, 365, 436
“Failure is not an option,” 40–41 fly-by-wire flight control system, 62 Gernhardt, Michael, 24
Faint Object Camera, 324, 325 fly swatting with Shuttle Robotic Arm, 291, 292 Get Away Special Program, 73, 477
Faint Object Spectrograph, 325 Foale, Michael, 144 Gibson, Robert, 27, 398
Fairchild Industries, 21, 486 foam insulation Gidzenko, Yuri, 28
family communication for crew well-being, 407 as ascent debris, 105–106, 308–309 Gilbert, Katie, 482
fatigue cracks, testing of, 201–202 closed-cell, 191 Gillam, Isaac, 462
fault-sensing system, SSME, 252–254 and Columbia accident, 28–29, 30, 37–38, Glenn, John Jr., 26
fault tree techniques, systems engineering, 307 188–189, 198–199 Glicksman, Martin, 437
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 91, 255 External Tank, 191–199 global positioning computers, 5, 64, 242, 254–255
Fendell, Ed, 46 nondestructive testing methods, 204–206 Global Positioning Satellite (GPS), 255
ferry flight, 108, 109 spray-on type, 191, 192–194, 196, 197, 300 globular cluster 47 Tucanae, 326
Fettman, Martin, 386 SRBs, 300 glow phenomenon, spacecraft, 218
Index 545
Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph, 324 Hartsfield, Henry, 19, 160 Hughes-Fulford, Millie, 410
Goddard Space Flight Center, 22–23, 104, 478 Harvard Medical School, 377 human-piloted rendezvous phase, 64
Goldin, Daniel, 26, 27, 36 Hauck, Frederick, 36 humoral immunity, 390, 391
Good, Michael, 143 Hawley, Steven, 160, 335, 466 Huntoon, Carolyn, 463
graceful degradation requirement for avionics, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point program, Hurley, Douglas, 148
244, 248 396 hurricanes, 93
graphite/epoxy composite, 59, 224, 273 hazardous gas detection, 180–181 Hydraulic Power Unit, SRB, 177
grapple fixture, Shuttle Robotic Arm, 289–290 Hazardous Gas Leak Detection System, 80 hydrazine propellant in Auxiliary Power Unit, 179
gravitational lensing, 336, 340 health and performance, humans in space hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC), 191, 196–198
gravitational mass, 430 cardiovascular changes, 383–387, 403 hydrogen environment embrittlement, 209–213, 285
Gravitational Threshold experiment, 413–414 decompression sickness from EVA, 125 hydrogen reaction embrittlement, 209
Gravitation Plant Physiology Facility, 413–414 disease prevention, 400–402 hydrolase operation on SRBs, 87, 300
gravity. See also microgravity environmental conditions, 396–400 Hypergolic Maintenance Facility, 76, 172
biological response to, 409–415, 421, 429–430 exercise methods, 380–383 hypergolic propellant, 81, 171–172, 173
defined, 430 and Extended Duration Orbiter Program, 24–25 hypernovae, 331
and expanding universe, 336 habitability improvements, 393–396 hypersensitivity, immune studies, 391
and gene expression, 418, 426–427 health care, 403–407 hypersonic flight, 4, 9, 227
gravity-driven convection, 421 immune system and infectious disease, 390–393 hypotension during spaceflight, 384, 386
gravity-sensing system, 410 introduction, 370
Great Observatories. See also Hubble Space Telescope muscle function changes, 24, 378–380, 403, 416 I
Chandra X-ray Observatory, 6, 25, 69, 340–341 neurological effects, 371–375, 410, 412–413 ice busting, 291, 292
Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, 6, 25, 117, nutritional needs, 387–390, 397 ice formation, detecting and preventing, 194, 195, 197
330, 339 orientation, effects of spaceflight on, 373, 407 ice frost ramps, 198–199
introduction, 320 sleep quality and quantity, 376–378, 405–406 igniter, SRB, 167, 168
overview, 25 space motion sickness, 21, 372–373, 403, 410 ILC Dover, 111, 488
Greene, Jay, 34, 46 space radiation effects, 450, 451–453 I-loads, 99
Gregory, Frederick, 462, 464 spacesuit challenges in ground training, 121 Imaging Compton Telescope, 339
Griffin, Michael, 30, 48 visual acuity, 373–375 imaging radar, 361–369
ground facility infrastructure, 84–85 health care in space, 403–407 IMAX®, 466
ground launch sequencer, 86, 260 health care spin-off innovations, 489–490 immune system studies in microgravity, 390–393,
Ground Lightning Monitoring System, 92 HeartAssist5®, 490 425–426, 479–480
ground operations. See also launch heart transplant innovation, 489–490 incident ultraviolet light, 180
communications and tracking, 85 heliosphere, 343 Incoflex®, 188
External Tank, 78–79, 81, 82, 86 Helms, Susan, 153 Inconel® 718, 160, 210, 213, 285, 490
facility infrastructure, 84–85 Henize, Karl, 461 Induced Environment Contamination Monitor, 214
during flight, 104–105 Hennan, Tom, 47 induced environment effects on materials, 213–218
health care preparations for flight, 404–406 herpes viruses, 390, 392 industries spawned by Space Shuttle Program,
KSC Integrated Control Schedule, 86 Herrington, John, 464 486–489
landing preparation, 75 Hieb, Rick, 118 inertial mass, 430
lightning challenge, 88–92 high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, 402 Inertial Upper Stage, 45, 46–47
NSS vs. NASA in 1980s, 46 high-pressure fuel turbopumps, SSME, 160, 162, infectious diseases, 390–393, 406
Orbiter processing, 76–77, 81 163–164, 211–213, 252–253 in-flight anomaly process, 307
payload processing, 79–80, 82–83 High Speed Photometer, 324 infrared thermography, 206–208
requirements and configuration management, high- vs. low-temperature tiles, 185 ingress from EVA, 119
85–86 Hilmers, David, 36 injector design, Orbital Maneuvering
SRB processing, 78, 81 Hi-Shear Technology Corporation, 492–493 System/Reaction Control System, 173, 176
SRB recovery, 86–87 Hoffman, Jeffrey, 292, 476 innate immunity, 390, 391
SSME processing, 78 Holloway, Tommy, 40 inspection
summary, 87 Holton, Emily, 479 Orbiter Boom Sensor System, 38, 66, 106,
vertical integration of components, 80 Home Improvement (TV series), 466 293–295, 448
ground targeted rendezvous phase, 64 Honeycutt, Jay, 46 for Orbiter damage, 105–107, 108, 189–190, 263,
ground turnaround thermography, 206–207 Hoshide, Akihiko, 98, 101, 103, 291 446–447
Grumman, 16, 486 Houston Museum of Natural Science, 476 SRBs postflight, 168–169
Grunsfeld, John, 120 Hubble, Edwin, 335 Thermal Protection Systems, 77, 105–106, 108,
g-suit, 24, 386, 404, 407 Hubble constant, 329–330, 334, 335 293–295, 313
Guidance Navigation and Control software, 64 Hubble Deep Field, 327, 328 instrumentation
Hubble Space Telescope External Tank, 309
H capabilities of, 323–324 SSME, 250–252
habitability, space vehicle, 380–383, 393–396 deployment of, 25, 69 insulation. See also Thermal Protection Systems
Hadfield, Chris, 152 design for Space Shuttle repair, 321–322 aerogel-based, 197
hail damage, 91 EVA role in repair of, 25, 118–120 Boeing Rigidized Insulation, 185
Hale, Wayne, 37, 38 ground preparations for servicing, 79 Fibrous Refractory Composite Insulation, 185
HAL/S software language, 257, 258 launch and first results, 322, 324–325 flexible reusable surface insulation, 184, 186
Ham, Kenneth, 98, 100, 101, 103 planetary observations, 337–338 Integrated Avionics System, 243–250
Hamel, Mike, 49 and Power Grip Tool, 122 Integrated Network Control System, 298
Hamilton Sundstrand, 111, 488 public relations, 338 Intelsat, 25, 118, 217–218
ham radio, 473 repairs and upgrades, 25, 30, 118–120, 322, 323, interacting galaxies, 330
Harbaugh, Gregory, 111 325–328 Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee,
Harmony connecting node, ISS, 153–154 and Shuttle Robotic Arm, 292 445
Harris, Ruth Bates, 461–462, 465 technology innovations, 338 interferometry, 364–366
Hart, John, 440 and virtual reality simulation development, 261 internal hydrogen embrittlement, 209, 211
Hart, Terry, 22–23, 116 Hubble Ultra Deep Field, 328–329 International Business Machines (IBM), 15, 62, 266
546 Index
international collaboration, 14–15 Johnson Space Center (JSC) launch
International Space Station (ISS) Challenger accident response, 35 countdown operations, 83, 86, 103, 260
air quality monitoring, 399, 400 Columbia accident response, 40 crew preparation, 103
berthing, 137, 292, 293 diversity in employees, 464–465 facility infrastructure, 84–85
commercial scientific research potential, 443 fracture control analysis, 284 gas leak detection at, 180–181
construction, 8, 27, 30, 37, 70, 134–138, 150–154, NSS integration, 47 integration of shuttle components, 44–45
160 running classified flights from, 20 launch pad operations, 81–86
crew change procedures, 107–108 weather operations, 88 Mobile Launcher Platform, 15, 80–83, 85, 92, 298,
crews’ challenges, 147–149 Jones, Richard, 464 495
debris damage avoidance, 448 Jones, Tom, 364 process for, 82, 83, 103–105, 286, 296–301, 462
docking, 107, 135–137 Jupiter, 338, 342–343 schedule for, 33, 37, 143–144
DOUG navigation software tool, 265–266, 267 and Shuttle-Mir missions, 132
early funding issues, 14 K tracking crew health for, 406
early tests, 131 Kaye, Jack, 359 training for, 84
EVAs in construction of, 115, 124–127, 141, 143 KC-135 aircraft, 121, 394 vertical integration of shuttle components, 80–81
flight trajectory planning for, 95–96 Kelly, Mark, 98, 101, 102, 107, 108 wildlife hazard to, 316, 317
ground preparations, 79–80 Kennedy, John, 461 Launch Control Center
ham radio at, 473 Kennedy Complex Control System, 84 Discovery maiden launch shut down, 160
historical overview, 27–28, 30 Kennedy Space Center (KSC) integrated network control role, 298–299
and importance of space cell biology, 430 capabilities of, 84–85 medical emergency care providers at, 406
improvements, 138–140 Challenger accident response, 34, 35 Pad Terminal Connection Room, 82
integrating with Space Shuttle Program, 23 Columbia accident response, 40 propellant loading of ET, 86
introduction, 130 diversity in employees, 464–465 Return to Flight after Challenger loss, 36
Orbiter inspection role of, 106–107 environmental issues around, 315–317 launch director, 104, 465
and Power Grip Tool, 122–123 and ISS construction, 23 Launch Pads, 81, 85, 92
as power source for shuttle, 59 as landing site, 56, 75 Launch Pad Lightning Warning System, 89
pressure to build and Columbia accident, 37 Launch Processing System, 296–301 launch pad operations, 81–86. See also weather
rendezvous with, 107 running classified flights from, 20 operations
as safe haven for shuttle, 30 shuttle management system, 264 Launch Processing System, 82, 83, 296–301, 462
Shuttle-Mir Program, 27, 37, 132–134 Standing Wave Reflectometer, 493–494 Launch to Activation timeline, ISS missions, 135
and Shuttle Robotic Arm, 66, 137–138, 150, tile application, 18 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 280
292–293 as tourist attraction, 467–468 L-band radar imaging, 361–364
sleep studies on, 378 weather operations, 88 Leavitt, Henrietta, 329
solar array repair, 138, 153–154 Kerrick, Ginger, 464 Lee, Dottie, 462
Spacelab, 131–132 Kevlar®, 280 Lee, Mark, 261, 411
Space Shuttle roles, 70, 140–146 Kibo Japanese Experiment Module, 145, 146 Leinbach, Michael, 37
SSME modifications for, 163 kidney function, spaceflight effects on, 388 Lenoir, William, 20
structural controls inspired by shuttle, 282 KidSat (EarthKAM), 470, 474–475 Li, Ping, 221
summary, 155 kinesthetic application of mechanical force reflection, LI-900 tile material, 185, 203–204
toilet malfunction, 102 263 LI-2200 tile material, 185
workplace environment, 148–149 King, Dave, 79 Liberty Star SRB recovery ship, 86–87
interplanetary probes, 24, 25, 33, 342–343 Kingsbury, James, 15 Lidar In-space Technology Experiment, 354–356
iron (nutrient) surplus during spaceflight, 389–390 Knight, Norman, 104 life science missions. See biomedical research
Isothermal Dendritic Growth Experiment, 437 Kononenko, Oleg, 98 LifeShear cutters, 492–493
Israeli Space Agency, 352 Kopra, Timothy, 148 lift capability, 55–56
Italian Space Agency, 134, 146, 152–153, 292, 364, Kraft, Christopher, 13, 21, 109 light emissions from Orbiter, 218
365 Kranz, Eugene, 36, 46, 109 light-emitting diodes (LEDs), 395
Krikalev, Sergei, 27, 28, 151 Lightning Advisory Panel, 90–91
J KSC Integrated Control Schedule, 86 lightning challenge, 88–92, 310
jackscrews, 276 Ku-band antenna, 108 Lightning Detection and Ranging System, 89–90
James, Larry, 49 Kuiper belt, 338 Lightning Induced Voltage Instrumentation System,
James Webb Telescope, 329, 337 Kyzen Corporation, 489 91
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) light-year, defined, 324
life science mission, 480 L Limb Ozone Retrieval Experiment, 345, 349–350
mission integration with shuttle, 95, 134, 144, 145, Lada biological mission, 414 Linenger, Jerry, 382
146 Lambda Point Experiment, 432 Linnehan, Richard, 262, 393
semiconductor crystal growth in microgravity, 436 landing liquid hydrogen fuel, 56, 82, 86, 159, 161, 209
and STS-124 preparations, 103 alternate sites, 55–56, 75, 108, 254 liquid oxygen oxidizer, 56, 82, 86, 159, 160–161
and value of collaboration, 107 Approach and Landing Tests, 17–18, 462 liquid phase sintering experiments, 436–437
Japanese Experiment Module, 95, 107, 145 computerized redundancy for, 62 Littke, Walter, 434
Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle, 144 preparing for, 75 Lockheed International, 13
Jaws of Life, 492–493 process of, 108 Lockheed Martin
Jemison, Mae, 464 trajectory planning, 99 aluminum-lithium alloy, 222
Jenkins, Harriett, 462 weather forecasts, 93 blowing agent replacement, 196
“jet pack” (manned maneuvering unit), 22, 115, land mine neutralization innovation, 492 and consolidated contract, 26
116–117 Langley Aerothermodynamic Upwind Relaxation foam insulation for ET, 192, 194, 199
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 364, 365–366, 369 Algorithm (LAURA), 231–233 LI-900 tile material, 203
Johnson, Angie, 464 language, computer, 257, 258 Michoud Assembly Facility, 78, 192, 195, 197,
Johnson, Lyndon, 43, 461 Large Magellanic Cloud, 332, 334 312
large-throat main combustion chamber, 163, 164 welding improvements for ET, 208
laser-based remote sensing of atmosphere, 354–356 Lockheed Space Operations Company, 19, 23, 185
Laser Geodynamic Satellite, 7 Logistics Depot, 77
lateral deadband, 240
Index 547
Long Duration Exposure Facility, 131 Thermal Protection Systems, 184–185, 274 Microwave Scanning Beam Landing System, 254
long-duration flights, adjusting to, 147–149, 152 titanium, 273, 274, 280 middeck, 59, 67–68
longerons on payload bay doors, 272 titanium zirconium molybdenum, 190 mid-fuselage design, 272, 274
Lopez-Alegria, Michael, 114 ultraviolet light effects, 180, 213 military and national security context, 14, 42–50.
Lovingood, Judson, 33 Mather, John, 323 See also specific military services
Low, George, 464 Mattingly, Thomas, 19 military “man in space” concept, 43–44, 49
low-Earth orbit, 216, 218, 445, 451 McArthur, Megan, 401 military payload specialists, 44
low- vs. high-temperature tiles, 185 McAuliffe, Christa, 30, 471, 472, 481 Milky Way galaxy, 331, 339, 342
Lu, Ed, 146 McCall, Bob, 465 minority group personnel in Space Shuttle Program,
Lucas, William, 22 McCandless, Bruce, 22, 115, 292, 467 461–465
Lucid, Shannon, 27, 132 McDonnell Douglas Minuteman, 15
luminous quasar, 326, 331, 336 Continuous Flow Electrophoresis System, 21, 435, Mir space station, 27, 51, 132, 134, 145.
lymphocyte cell locomotion in microgravity, 425–426 443 See also Shuttle-Mir Program
flying of researchers on shuttle, 464 Mission Control Center, 64, 101, 104–105
M as Orbital Maneuvering System builder, 16 Mission Management Team, 36
M88-1 experiments, 47–48 shuttle design, 13, 14 Mission Operations Control Room, 20, 47
MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd., 195 McNair, Ann, 465 Mission Operations Directorate, 95
Magellan mission, 24, 343 McPherson, Alexander, 434 missions. See operations, mission; Space
magnetic storms, 456 Mechanics of Granular Materials experiment, Transportation System (STS)
Main Propulsion System. See Solid Rocket Boosters 439–440 mission specialists, first flights with, 20, 463
(SRBs); Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) Median Filter First Guess software, 93 Mission to Mir (film), 466
Malenchenko, Yuri, 146 medical kit, 404, 405 Mobile Launcher Platform, 15, 80–83, 85, 92, 298,
mammalian development, 412–413, 424 Medical Privacy Act (1974), 407 495
maneuverability, Orbiter, 56, 62–64, 107, 139, medicine, space, 403–407. See also health and modularization in engineering design, 113–114,
171–175, 273 performance 172–173, 174
Mango, Ed, 37 Mediterranean Israeli Dust Experiment, 352–353 Modular Mini Workstation (EVA tool belt), 124
Manipulator Development Facility, 261 Melnick, Bruce, 118 Mohri, Mamoru, 479
manned maneuvering unit, 22, 115, 116–117 Melroy, Pamela, 153 Moltz, James, 51
Manned Orbiting Laboratory, 44 Melvin, Leland, 396 Mondale, Walter, 14
Manned Spacecraft Center, 13, 461. See also Johnson memory, challenges of computer, 257–258 monomethylhydrazine propellant, 172, 175
Space Center (JSC) Mercury Program, 463 Monte Carlo analysis, 232, 233
manned spaceflight engineers, 47, 49 Merritt Island Launch Area, 85 Montgomery, Ann, 465
mapping of Earth, 73, 360–369 Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, 315–316 Montreal Protocol, 348
Mars, Hubble observation of, 337–338 metallurgy, 437 Moonraker, 466
Marshall Convergent Coating-I, 300 Metcalf-Lindenburger, Dorothy, 461 Morgan, Barbara, 30, 471, 480, 481
Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Michael P. Anderson Engineering Outreach Project, Morgan, JoAnn, 462, 465
Challenger accident problems, 34 471, 472–473 Morris, Owen, 306
chlorofluorocarbon substitute research, 196 Michoud Assembly Facility, 78, 192, 195, 197, 312 Morton Thiokol. See Thiokol Chemical Corporation
Columbia accident response, 40 MICROBE experiment, 415 Moscow Control Center, 132
diversity in employees, 464–465 Microbial Check Valve, 494–495 motion sickness, space, 21, 372–373, 403, 410
and initial shuttle planning, 13 microgravity Mukai, Chiaki, 467
Michoud Assembly Facility management, 312 animal studies in, 410–418, 480 Mullane, Richard, 160, 463
weather operations, 88 bacteria in, 415, 419, 443 multiplexer/demultiplexer, avionics system, 245, 246
Marshburn, Thomas, 148 biotechnology, 419, 435, 443 Multi-Purpose Logistic Modules, 292
Martin Marietta, 15, 486 cell biology in, 418, 421–430 muscle atrophy, 24, 378–380, 403, 416
mass handling simulation for EVAs, 262–263 commercial interest in working with, 442 musculoskeletal system changes in microgravity, 24,
Massimino, Michael, 401 and Extended Duration Orbiter Program, 24 378–380, 403, 416
Mastracchio, Rick, 123 fire in, 400, 405, 440–442 Musgrave, Story, 461
materials and materials science fluid engineering for, 438–440 music, shuttle as inspiration for, 465–466
aluminum-copper alloy, 222–223, 225 gene expression in, 418, 426–427
aluminum-lithium alloy, 27, 221–225, 312 immune system studies, 390–393, 425–426, N
boron/epoxy, 274 479–480 N132D supernova remnant, 333–334
chemical fingerprinting, 219–221 introduction, 420 NARloy-Z nickel-based superalloy material, 160
graphite/epoxy composite, 59, 224, 273 mass handling challenge, 262–263 NASA Educational Workshops, 478
hydrogen environment embrittlement, 209–213, materials processing, 7, 435–437 NASA/FLAGRO software, 284
285 mechanics of motion, 476 NASA Safety Reporting System, 35
Inconel® 718, 160, 210, 213, 285, 490 musculoskeletal system, 24, 378–380, 416 NASGRO® software, 284–285
introduction, 200 neurological effects, 371–375, 407, 410, 412–413 National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Kevlar®, 280 Orbiter’s capability as platform for, 71 (NASA)
LI-900 and LI-2200 tile material, 185, 203–204 physics environment in, 430–433, 476 encouragement of commercial ventures, 488
mission overview (1982–1986), 21 plant biology in, 413–414 and FAA on flight inspections, 255
NARloy-Z nickel-based superalloy material, 160 protein crystal growth, 433–435 NOAA collaboration, 345–346
nondestructive testing, 201–208 space motion sickness, 21, 372–373, 403, 410 and NSS, 43, 44–46, 49–50
Orbiter, 273–275 Microgravity Opportunity To Enhance Learning shuttle accident impact on overall operations,
processing in microgravity, 7, 435–437 (MOTEL), 477–478 40–41
reinforced carbon-carbon, 5, 107, 183–184, MicroMed Cardiovascular, Inc., 490 National Bureau of Standards, 442
187–190, 204, 206–208 micrometeoroids, 445 National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, 365, 369
silica/alumina fibrous material, 183 microorganisms National Lightning Detection Network, 89, 90
space environment challenges, 213–218 bacteria, 415, 419, 443 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
SSME, 160, 274 cell and molecular biology in space, 418, 421–430 (NOAA), 345, 346–347, 455
STA-54 ablative material, 189 immune system studies, 390–393, 425–426, National Outdoor Leadership School, 101
thermal expansion of materials, 136, 175, 187 479–480 National Polar Orbiting Operational Satellite System,
protecting crew from, 400–402, 415 351
548 Index
National Research Council, 397–398, 400, 436 operations, mission P
National Science Education Standards, 472, 476 automation, autonomy, and redundancy, 62 Padalka, Gennady, 148
national security context, 14, 42–51 crew compartment accommodation, 67–68 Pad Terminal Connection Room, 82
National Security Space (NSS) programs, 42–50 EVAs (See extravehicular activity [EVA]) Pailes, William, 47
National Space Biomedical Research Institute, 381 flight operations (See flight operations) Paine, Thomas, 14, 287
national space policy, 43 ground operations (See ground operations) paintings and murals, 465
National Space Technology Laboratory, 18, 161. ISS (See International Space Station [ISS]) Palapa B1, 488
See also Stennis Space Center maneuverability, 56, 62–64, 107, 139, 171–175, Palapa B2, 111, 116
National Space Transportation Policy, 43 273 Palapa satellites, 23
National Space Transportation System, 36 NSS, 46–47 Parachute Refurbishment Facility, 87
National Weather Service, 88, 89, 93, 455 performance capabilities and limitations, 69 Paragon Vision Sciences, 443
navigational aides, 5, 64, 242, 254–255, 265–266, 267 rendezvous, 64, 107, 132–133, 139–140 Parazynski, Scott, 112, 154
Navy, US, collaboration with, 106, 494 scientific research capabilities, 71–73 Parsons, Bill, 79
Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer, Shuttle Robotic Arm’s capabilities, 65–66 Parsons, William, 79, 466
327, 328, 330, 331, 337 test and countdown, 83–84, 86, 103, 260 Patrick Air Force Base, 35, 90, 406
nebula, defined, 324 typical flight profile, 61 Pawelczyk, James, 374, 393
nebulae, 326, 332–333 weather component, 34, 88–93, 104, 174, 455 Payette, Julie, 148
Nelson, Bill, 464 Optigo™, 77 payload bay doors, 59, 122, 224, 272
Nelson, George, 22, 23, 116, 117 orbital debris, 105–107, 445–449 Payload Changeout Room, 82–83
Nemerov, Howard, ix, 41 Orbital Flight Test Program, 34 payload ground handling mechanism, 82–83
Neptune, Hubble observations, 338 Orbital Maneuvering System, 56, 62–63, 107, 139, payloads
Neurolab, 25, 377, 378, 413 171–175, 273 classified DoD, 19–20
neurological effects of microgravity, 371–375, 410, orbital velocity, 430 fittings for attaching, 272
412–413 Orbiter. See also landing; re-entry; Shuttle Robotic Arm flight systems management, 99
Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, 102, 120–121, 126 automation of flight operations, 62 and fracture control methods, 283–284
Newman, James, 27 building of, 15–16 ground processing, 79–80, 82–83
Newton’s law of gravitation, 430 crew cabin/compartment, 59, 67–68, 101, 271, 275 importance of placement, 56
NEXRAD Doppler radar, 90 debris damage inspection, 105–107, 108, 189–190, and induced environment effects, 215
nitrogen tetroxide, 172, 175, 177 263, 446–447 ISS assembly (See International Space Station
Nixon, Richard, 13, 14, 43, 461, 463, 464 docking, 64, 70, 107, 132–133, 135–137 [ISS])
NOAA polar orbiting weather satellite, 346–347 EVAs (See extravehicular activity [EVA]) NSS, 46–48
Node 1 (Unity Module) (ISS), 27, 70, 160, 293 flight systems management, 99 observatories (See observatories)
Node 2 (ISS), 37 free flights, 17, 448 satellites (See satellites)
Node 3 (ISS), 30 ground processing, 76–77, 81 scientific research (See scientific research)
Nomex® pads under tiles, 305 iconic status of, 2 shuttle capacity, 59–60
nondestructive materials evaluation, 201–208, 283 light emissions from, 218 weight/mass distribution, 147–148
Non-Oxide Adhesive Experimental, 190 maneuverability, 56, 62–64, 107, 139, 171–175, payload specialist, 44, 47, 463
Noriega, Carlos, 152 273 Payton, Gary, 47, 49
North American Rockwell Corporation, 13, 14, 15, materials, 273–275 peanut butter experiment, 478
486 physical characteristics of, 59–61 peripheral mononuclear cell studies, 391, 393
North Carolina Foam Industries, 191, 196, 197 and process control, 314 PerkinElmer MGA-1200, 181
Northcutt, Frances, 464 redundancy management scheme, 62 Personal Computer Ground Operations Aerospace
nozzle design rendezvous, 64, 107, 132–133, 139–140 Language (PCGOAL), 257
Orbital Maneuvering System, 174 as scientific research platform, 71–73 Perutz, Max, 433
SRB, 56, 78, 167–168, 170, 193, 281 structural design innovations, 271–279 phantom torso, 453
nutritional needs in space, 387–390, 397 Thermal Protection System, 56, 183–190, 293–295 Phillips, John, 419
Nyberg, Karen, 98, 101, 103, 106 windows, 59, 299 Phillips Laboratories, 216
Orbiter Boom Sensor System physics environment in space, 430–433, 476
O inspection of Orbiter in space, 38, 66, 106, Physiological Systems Experiments, 416
observatories 293–295, 448 physiology of humans in space. See health and
ASTRO, 26, 33, 342 solar array repair at ISS, 138, 153–154 performance, humans in space
CIRRUS, 46, 47 Orbiter Processing Facility, 18, 76, 85 “Pillars of Creation” image in Eagle Nebula, 326
deployment of, 24, 25 Orbiting and Retrievable Far and Extreme Pistol Grip Tool, 122–124
Solar Maximum Satellite (SolarMax), 6–7, 22, Ultraviolet Spectrometer-Shuttle Pallet Satellite planetary nebulae, 332–333
111, 116, 117, 343 missions, 26, 342 planetary science, 24, 25, 33, 342–343.
summary, 343 orientation, effects of spaceflight on, 373, 407 See also observatories
ultraviolet programs, 26, 33, 342 Oriented Scintillation Spectrometer Experiment, 339 plant biology in microgravity, 413–414
Ochoa, Ellen, 348 O-rings, 33, 166, 170, 193 platelet technology for Orbital Maneuvering Systems
Olivas, John, 8, 143 Orion Nebula, 326, 332 injectors, 173
on-board targeted rendezvous phase, 64 orthostatic hypotension, 384 plume flow fields, 228
O’Neil, John, 46 orthostatic intolerance, 383–386 Pluto, Hubble observations, 338
Onizuka, Ellison, 462 Ostrach, Simon, 439 “Pogo” vibration, 277
on-orbit impact detection sensor, 448 OVERFLOW computational fluid dynamics tool, 231 Pohl, Henry, 173
on-orbit inspections, 106–107 OXYCHECK™ Pty Ltd, 491 Polansky, Mark, 148
on-orbit operations, 107 oxygen atoms’ effects on materials in space, 215–217 polyisocyanurate foam (NCFI 24-124), 191
on-orbit thermography, 207–208 Oxygen Interaction with Materials III, 216–217 Postell, Arnold, 465
“Opening the Space Frontier: The Next Giant Step” Oxygen System Consultants, Inc., 491 postflight operations
(mural), 465 oxygen system safety innovation, 490–491 health care, 375, 406–407
operating pressures, pressure vessels, 163, 280 oxygen testing standard, ASTM G124, 491 orbital debris damage inspection, 446–447
Operational Intercommunication System, 303 oxygen testing standard, ASTM G175, 491 SRB inspection, 60, 168–169
“operational syndrome” prior to Challenger ozone depletion and calibration, 168, 195–198, potassium (nutritional) requirements, 388
accident, 34 344–351 powered explicit guidance, 234
Index 549
power generation cryogenics, 59 Reagan, Nancy, 19 Russian Federal Space Agency
powerhead, SSME, 159, 162–163 Reagan, Ronald, 14, 19, 23, 36, 43, 471 Bion biosatellites, 416
Power Reactant Storage and Distribution System, 86 Real Time Vibration Monitoring System, 253–254 FGB, 150
Power Transfer System, 59 Recharge Oxygen Orifice Bypass Assembly, 143 and Japanese mission collaboration, 95
Pratt & Whitney Company, 162, 441 reconfigurable redundancy, avionics system, 243–250 Lada biological mission, 414
Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, 254, 313 recumbent seats, 385 Shuttle-Mir Program, 27, 37, 132–134
Precision Air Bearing Facility, 121, 126 red blood cells, changes during spaceflight, 385, shuttle operations adjustment to space station,
preflight crew quarantine, 406 389–390 144–146, 147–148, 149
pressure vessels, 163, 279–282 reduced gravity, effects of. See microgravity shuttle’s appeal for space station, 141
pressurization lines, ET, 198–199 redundancy management scheme, avionics, 62 Svet biological mission, 414
pressurized laboratory module. See Spacehab, Inc.; re-entry
Spacelab avionics reconfiguration, 246 S
Pressurized Mating Adapter, 138, 150 computerized redundancy for, 62 safety of spaceflight, accidents’ impact on perception
preventive medicine focus for crew health, 404 drag velocity profile, 236 of, 40
Primary Avionics Software, 62, 258, 260 flight operations, 107–108 safety tether, 124
Primary Life Support System, spacesuit, 113–114 health care issues for, 404, 407 Sahara region radar mapping, 363
private enterprise. See commercial ventures mechanics of, 56 Sally Ride’s Science Club, 468
probability of detection, 202, 205 and Orbiter design, 228–229, 230, 236–241, 271 Salmonella, on-orbit analysis of, 415, 419
process control, 171, 199, 310–315 technical challenges of, 4–5 Salyut space station, 134
Product Development Laboratory-1034, 191 thermal protection for, 183, 184 Santa Susana Field Laboratory, 161
Progress spacecraft, 146, 147 trajectory planning, 99 satellites. See also individual satellite names
Project Starshine, 474 Reightler, Kenneth, 70 communication, 47
proof test logic (fracture control), 282 reinforced carbon-carbon material, 5, 107, 183–184, deployment of, 20, 69, 488
proplyds, 326 187–190, 204, 206–208 EVA role in retrieval and repair, 116–118
propulsion. See also Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs); Reisman, Garrett, 98, 143 repair and retrieval missions, 7, 22–23, 25, 64,
Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) Reiter, Thomas, 207 69–70
Auxiliary Power Unit, 151, 177–179 renal function, spaceflight effects on, 388 student, 474
development of system, 161–162 rendezvous, 64, 107, 132–133, 139–140 Saturn, Hubble observations, 338
and hazardous gas detection, 180–181 Rendezvous Proximity Operations Program, 64 Saturn V, 6, 131
hydrogen environment embrittlement, 209–213, 285 renormalization group theory, 432–433 Saucier, David, 489
introduction, 158 reproduction, gravity’s role in, 410–411 Schendel, Stephen, 417
Orbital Maneuvering System, 56, 62–64, 107, 139, requirements and configuration management, 85–86 scientific research
171–175, 273 Research Animal Holding Facility, 412 biology experiments (See biomedical research)
overview, 5 Resnick, Judy, 160 Earth observations, 344–359 (See also
Reaction Control System, 56, 62–64, 76, 172–173, Return to Flight atmosphere)
175–177, 237 post-Challenger, 24, 35, 36 and education (See education)
prostate cancer cells in microgravity, 428 post-Columbia, 29–30, 38, 40, 127–128, 188–189, health and performance of astronauts (See health
protein crystal growth in microgravity, 433–435 293–295, 307–309 and performance)
protein nutritional needs during spaceflight, 389 Reusable Solid Rocket Motor Program. See Solid interplanetary probes, 24, 25, 33, 342–343
protoplanetary disks, 326 Rocket Boosters (SRBs) microgravity effects (See microgravity)
proximity operations, rendezvous, 64, 267 reusable surface insulation. See tiles, insulation mission overview (1982–1986), 21
pseudo-simultaneous computer failures, 248 Reynolds Aluminum, 222 observatory deployments (See observatories)
psychological support kits for long-duration missions, Ride, Sally, 463, 464, 474 Orbiter’s capabilities for, 71–73
152 rigid silica tile, 185 overview, 6–7
psychological well-being, protecting crew, 405–406, Riley, Danny, 416 shuttle’s research capabilities, 71–73
407 risk assessment, 38, 199, 231, 447 space environments, 444–457
PT Technologies, 489 Roach MOTEL student science project, 477–478 topographical Earth mapping, 73, 360–369
Purdue University, 482 Roberts, Kathy, 49 Scobee, June, 471
pyrotechnic systems, 184, 307 Robinson, Stephen, 30, 372 screen tanks, Reaction Control System, 177
robotics. See also Shuttle Robotic Arm search and rescue support at launch, 104
Q and EVAs, 111, 112 Searfoss, Richard, 378, 393
quantitative nondestructive testing, 201–202 Space Station Robotic Arm, 137–138, 146, Seddon, Rhea, 292, 386, 476, 479
quasars, 324, 326, 331, 336, 340 152–154, 267 Segment-to-Segment Attachment System, 138, 150
Quest airlock, 143 for spraying on foam insulation, 300 Self-Contained Payload Program (Get Away
in virtual reality simulation, 262–263 Specials), 73, 477
R Rocketdyne, 15, 18, 159, 161, 162 Sellers, Piers, 128
radar imaging, 361–369 rocket-triggered lightning, 88 semiconductor crystal growth, 435–437
“radar rivers,” 363 Rockwell International, 15, 23, 26, 159, 314 sensor validation algorithm, 253
radiation threat in space, 247, 450–457 Rogers Commission, 34, 35 sensory-conflict theory, 372
radiative heat transfer, 184–185 rollout to launch pad, 81 service life of shuttle components, 160, 282, 283
radiator panels, Orbiter, 59 Romanenko, Roman, 148 servicing missions, 7, 22–23, 25, 64, 69–70. See also
Radio Detection and Ranging, 105 Ronney, Paul, 441 Hubble Space Telescope
Raffaello logistics module, 152–153 Ross, Jerry, 25, 27 Shannon, John, 38
rain protection, 174 rotating service structure, 81, 83, 86 Sharipov, Salizhan, 263
Rapid Response and Mishap Investigation Team, 37 Rotation Processing and Surge Facility, 78 Shaw, Brewster, 468
Reaction Control System Roussel-Uclaf, 435 Shaw, Chuck, 28
design and workings of, 76, 175–177 Runco, Mario, 48 Shelton, Willie, 49
docking, 64 Rush, Canadian musicians, 465–466 Shepherd, William, 28
function of, 56, 62–63 Shoemaker-Levy 9, 326, 337, 342
ground support design, 172–173 Shriver, Loren, 12
during re-entry, 237 Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory, 12, 15, 76
thrusters, 62–63, 173, 176 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, 17, 90
Shuttle Imaging Radar missions, 361–369
550 Index
Shuttle Landing Facility, 75 Solid Rocket Booster Bolt Catcher, 29 mission complexity over time, 31
Shuttle Launch Experience, 468 Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) 1982–1986 operations, 20–23
Shuttle Logistics Depot, 77 building of, 15 operations (See operations, mission)
Shuttle-Mir Program, 27, 37, 132–134 and Challenger accident, 24, 32, 33–34, 166, Orbiter (See Orbiter)
Shuttle Mission Simulator, 100–101 167–168 overview of accomplishments, 2–9
Shuttle Orbiter Medical System, 405 chemical fingerprinting, 219–221 physical characteristics of, 55–60
Shuttle Ozone Limb Sounding Experiment, 349–350 continual improvement culture, 171 post-Challenger program building, 24–27
Shuttle Processing Contract, 23 as cost-saving move, 15 presidential approval, 14–15
Shuttle Radar Topography mission, 73, 365–369 design, 166–168, 281 propulsion (See propulsion)
Shuttle Robotic Arm ground processing, 78, 81 reusability, 4, 13, 60
components, 289 Hydraulic Power Unit, 177 shuttle requirements, 14
construction of, 65 hydrolase operation, 87, 300 testing, 17–19
crew pre-flight training, 102 legacy of, 171 unique capabilities of, 54
and DOUG 3-D graphics software, 266–267 nozzles, 56, 78, 167–168, 170, 193, 281 vertical integration of components, 80–81
and EVA missions, 66, 107, 115–116 O-rings, 33, 166, 170, 193 weight of, 55–56
and ISS construction, 66, 137–138, 150, 292–293 overview, 5, 165–166 Space Shuttle Amateur Radio Experiment (SAREX),
operational capability, 65–66 physical characteristics, 56–58 471, 473
shuttle damage check capability, 29–30, 106, postflight inspection and refurbishment, 60, Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME)
128, 189 168–169 building of, 15, 18
structural design, 286, 287–296 and process control, 311 capabilities of, 6
and virtual reality simulation development, 261, recovery of, 60, 84, 85, 86–87, 313 combustion chamber, 163, 164, 210
262, 263 reusability of, 60, 165, 168–170 design of, 160–164
Shuttle Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet instrument, spray-on foam insulation, 300 development and certification, 161–162
345–348, 349 testing, 170–171 efficiency of, 6
Shuttle Student Involvement Program, 478 Solumina® manufacturing execution system, 264 fault-sensing system, 252–254
Shuttle-to-Shuttle Power Transfer System, 59 sonic velocity testing for tiles, 203–204 fracture control analysis, 161, 282–285
Shuttle Training Aircraft, 100 Sontag, Mark, 475 ground processing, 78
silica/alumina fibrous material, 183 sound suppression for launch pad operations, 83 hydrogen environment embrittlement resistance,
silicon carbide coating, 187, 188, 189 Southern lights, 48 210
Simmons, Damien, 480 Southwest Research Institute, 189 instrumentation, 250–252
Simplified Aid for EVA Rescue (SAFER), 126, 128, Soviet Union, 27, 42, 50–51 life requirement evolution, 162
261–262, 266 Soyuz capsule, 30, 107, 146, 147 materials, 160, 274
simulators, training, 100–101, 261–263 space adaptation syndrome, 403, 404 overview, 159–160
Singer, Jody, 465 “space beads,” 442 physical characteristics, 58–59
single-coil heat exchanger, 25 Space Bioreactor, 423–425 and process control, 313
single-point computer failures, monitoring for, Space Camp, 466 summary, 164
248–249 Space Center Houston, 468 systems engineering issues, 303–304
Skylab, 131, 147, 379, 380, 436 Space Command, 49 testing of, 16, 19, 161–162, 163, 304
sleep issues during spaceflight, 376–378, 405–406 Space Cowboys, 466 turbopumps, 160, 162, 163–164, 211–213, 252–253
small business services for shuttle, 489 space deconditioning, prevention of, 380–383 upgrade of (1995), 25
Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, 3, 369, 468, 476 space environments. See also microgravity vibration monitoring, 253–254, 277
Snyder, Robert, 435 humans, effects on, 396–400 Space Shuttle Program Systems Integration Office,
sodium (nutritional) requirements, 388 introduction, 444 305
software materials, effect on, 213–218 space station. See International Space Station (ISS)
Collaborative Integrated Processing Solutions, 264 orbital debris, 105–107, 445–449 Space Station Freedom, 23, 132, 134. See also
DOUG, 265–269 radiation challenge, 247, 450–457 International Space Station (ISS)
EVA-related virtual reality, 126, 261–263 re-entry heating, 183, 184 Space Station Processing Facility, 79–80, 84
flight operations, 62 vs. spacesuit environment, 112 Space Station Robotic Arm, 137–138, 146, 152–154,
introduction, 256 Space Experiment Module Program, 478 267
Launch Processing System, 83 Spaceflight Meteorology Group, 88, 89, 93 spacesuit, 107, 112–114, 120–121
LAURA, 231–233 Space Flight Operations Contract, 26, 37 Space Task Group, 13
Median Filter First Guess, 93 Spacehab, Inc., 25, 26, 131 Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph, 323, 327
NASGRO® software, 284–285 Spacelab Space Test Program, USAF, 46–49
OVERFLOW computational fluid dynamics tool, Europe as contractor to build, 14–15 Space Transportation System (STS)
231 first flight of, 21–22 STS-1, 12, 19, 162, 203, 215, 229–230
primary tools, 257–260 fluid behavior experiments, 440 STS-2, 33, 214, 362–363
and reboot of ISS, 153 lessons from handling, 131–132 STS-3, 75, 214
rendezvous and docking, 64, 135 life sciences missions, 25–26, 388, 410 STS-4, 19, 46, 214
System Integrity, 298–299 Orbiter as power resource for, 73 STS-5, 20, 216
three-dimensional graphics, 265–269, 417 space medicine, 403–407 STS-6, 33, 115, 181, 400
trajectory control, 99 space motion sickness, 21, 372–373, 403, 410 STS-7, 21, 75
virtual reality, 102, 261–263 Space Radar Laboratory Missions, 7, 364 STS-8, 21, 216
Solar Array Coupon flight experiment, 218 space radiation, 247, 450–457 STS-9, 25, 179, 249
solar array panels, 138, 140, 150, 152, 153 Space Shuttle STS-26, 24, 36, 464
Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet 2 instrument, 345–348, construction, 15–17 STS-27, 47
349 as cultural inspiration, 465–469 STS-28, 24, 47, 400
solar energetic particle events, 450, 454, 457 design and development, 13–14, 303–306 STS-29, 394, 479
solar extreme UV radiation damage, 217 External Tank (See External Tank [ET]) STS-30, 24
solar flares, 339 financial benefits from ISS Program, 145 STS-31, 292, 324
Solar Maximum Satellite (SolarMax), 6–7, 22, 111, improvements for ISS missions, 139 STS-32, 131
116, 117, 343 initial spaceflight operations, 19 STS-33, 47, 464
solar system, Hubble observations, 337–338 introduction, 12–13 STS-34, 24, 257
solid propellant, 78, 166 management system, 264 STS-35, 181, 342, 377
Index 551
STS-36, 47 STS-108, 164, 197, 426, 474 Sun Coast Chemicals, Inc., 495
STS-37, 62, 131, 252, 339 STS-109, 325, 328 Sunnyvale USAF station, 46
STS-38, 47, 181 STS-110, 164 Super-Lightweight Ablator (SLA)-561, 191, 193
STS-39, 47 STS-112, 38, 307 supermassive black holes, 324–325, 326–327, 331
STS-40, 381, 410 STS-114, 29–30, 38, 40, 143, 197, 206, 269, 448 supernova 1987A, 333
STS-41, 24, 218, 394 STS-115, 415 supernovae, 324, 329, 330–331, 333–335, 340
STS-41B, 22, 23, 75, 115–116 STS-116, 195, 455 supersonic speeds, 228
STS-41C, 22, 116, 131, 343 STS-117, 153, 164 Surface Tension-driven Convection Experiment, 439
STS-41D, 131, 218 STS-118, 30, 417, 471 Survivability Program, Launch Processing System,
STS-41G, 131, 363–364 STS-119, 316 301
STS-42, 413–414 STS-120, 138, 153–154 Svet biological mission, 414
STS-43, 281, 394, 395 STS-121, 30, 121, 128, 143, 207, 294–295, 479 Syncom-IV/Leasat 3, 7, 117
STS-44, 47–48, 423 STS-122, 146, 307 synthetic aperture radar, 361
STS-45, 347 STS-123, 189, 415 System Integrity software, 298–299
STS-46, 215, 216–217 STS-124, 94, 95, 98, 101, 102–103, 106, 108, systems engineering
STS-47, 410–411, 480 146, 148 college-level education opportunities, 482–483
STS-48, 351 STS-125, 30, 323, 325 crucial role of, 307–309
STS-49, 25, 118, 217–218 STS-126, 417 during development of shuttle, 303–306
STS-50, 24, 446 STS-127, 315 electromagnetic compatibility, 309–310
STS-51, 342 STS-128, 30 environmental issues, 315–316
STS-51A, 23, 116 STS-133, 30 introduction, 302
STS-51B, 34, 351, 410, 412 STS-134, 27, 30 midlife program restoration of, 306–309
STS-51C, 20, 34, 46–47 Space Transportation Systems Operations Contract, process control, 310–315
STS-51D, 117, 476 23, 487 summary, 317
STS-51F, 251, 413 Space Vision System, 293 Systems Integration Office, 305–306
STS-51I, 23, 117 spacewalking. See extravehicular activity (EVA) Systems Maintenance Automated Repair Tasks, 264
STS-51J, 20, 47 space weather (radiation patterns), 454–457
STS-51L, 34, 472 Spar Aerospace Ltd., 65 T
STS-52, 214, 433 SPARTAN, 6 T-38 aircraft, 102
STS-53, 48, 251–252 spin-off innovations, 489–495 Tactical Air Navigation System, 254
STS-54, 425, 476 Spitzer, Lyman, 323 Talone, Tip, 36
STS-55, 402 Spitzer Space Telescope, 328 Tanner, Joseph, 152
STS-56, 347, 351, 424 spray-on foam insulation, 191, 192–194, 196, 197, 300 Teacher in Space Program, 30, 471, 481
STS-58, 381, 410, 416–417, 479 Sprites, 353 team-building exercise for crew, 101–102
STS-60, 27 STA-54 ablative material, 189 technical panel structure, 305
STS-61, 261, 325, 466 stacking operations, shuttle components, 78, 81 technology transfer innovations, 489–495
STS-61A, 22, 434 staged combustion cycle engine, 159. See also Space Techshot, Inc., 479
STS-61B, 23, 27, 131 Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) Tel Aviv University, 352
STS-61C, 21, 33 Standing Wave Reflectometer, 493–494 telescopes. See observatories
STS-62, 218, 424 Staphylococcus aureus, microgravity analysis of, 419, television, 466
STS-62A, 20 443 terahertz imaging, 204–205
STS-63, 263 star life cycle, 332–334 terminal area energy management, 56
STS-64, 262, 354 Starshine satellite, 474 Terminal Countdown Demonstration Test, 84
STS-66, 347, 351, 412 Star Trek (TV series), 17 Thagard, Norman, 27
STS-67, 342 Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer System, 59, 141 thermal expansion of materials, 136, 175, 187, 188
STS-70, 25, 162, 316, 412, 423 Stefanyshyn-Piper, Heidemarie, 415 Thermal Protection Systems. See also foam
STS-71, 27, 133, 391 Stennis Space Center, 161, 180, 304 insulation; tiles, insulation
STS-73, 446–447 Stepanfoam® BX-250, 192–194, 197 and aborting of mission, 184, 254, 406–407
STS-74, 27 Stepanfoam® BX-265, 191, 196 and aerothermodynamic analysis, 227, 238, 239
STS-77, 476 Stewart, Bob, 22 bonding issues on metal surfaces, 180
STS-78, 379, 416–417 Stone, Randy, 34 Columbia accident lessons learned, 188–189,
STS-79, 197, 427 strain isolation pads, 185–186, 202–203, 305 198–199
STS-80, 26 Strategic Defense Initiative, 47, 48 and DOUG 3-D graphics software, 268–269
STS-81, 399 Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment, 346–348, EVAs for repair of, 127–128
STS-82, 325, 327 349 External Tank (ET), 191–199
STS-85, 197, 424 stress rupture, 279, 280 inspection of, 77, 105–106, 108, 293–295, 313
STS-86, 447 structural certification introduction, 182
STS-87, 350 Orbiter, 271–279 materials, 184–185, 274
STS-88, 150, 292, 478 Shuttle Robotic Arm, 290–291 operational role of, 56
STS-89, 163, 399 SSME, 161–162 Orbiter, 56, 183–190, 293–295
STS-90, 316, 377, 378, 381, 412, 418 structural design innovations overview, 4–5
STS-91, 27 fracture control technology, 161, 282–285 repair capability, 127–128, 293–295
STS-92, 28 introduction, 270 Solid Rocket Booster (SRB), 300
STS-93, 340, 493 Orbiter, 271–279 and systems engineering, 304–305
STS-95, 377, 418, 477 pressure vessels, 279–282 Thermal Protection Systems Facility, 77
STS-96, 253, 474 structural test article, 18, 276–278 thermal stress analysis, Orbiter, 273
STS-97, 71, 141, 150, 152 Stuart, Bob, 49 Thermographic Inspection System, 206–207
STS-100, 152–153 Sture, Stein, 439 Thiokol Chemical Corporation
STS-102, 266 subsonic speeds, 228 and Challenger accident, 34, 35
STS-103, 325 Sullivan, Kathryn, 466 improvements in SRB, 170, 171
STS-104, 141, 164 sun, study of and leftover shuttle propellant for de-mining, 492
STS-105, 426 solar energetic particle events, 450, 454, 457 refurbishment of SRBs, 60
STS-106, 426 solar flares, 339 as SRB designer/builder, 15, 165–166
STS-107, 32, 35, 350, 352, 428 SolarMax mission, 6–7, 22, 111, 116, 117, 343
552 Index
Thirsk, Robert, 148 U water deluge system, 83
30 Doradus star-forming region, 332 Udvar-Hazy Center, 468 Water Emersion Test Facility, 261
Thomas, Andrew, 190, 398 ultimate load, 276, 278 water quality, on-board, 400, 405, 494–495
Thomas, Donald, 471 ultrasonic velocity testing for tiles, 203–204 weather operations, 34, 88–93, 104, 174, 455
Thompson, James, 59 Ultraviolet Instruments for ozone calibration, Weather Radar, 89
Thompson, J. R., 34 345–348, 349 Weber, Mary Ellen, 423
Thompson, Robert, 14, 304 ultraviolet light, effect on materials, 180, 213 Weightless Environment Training Facility, 120–121,
Thorne, Robert, 434 ultraviolet observation programs, 26, 33, 342 126
Thornton, Kathryn, 394, 438 ultraviolet radiation damage, 217 weightlessness, physics of, 430–431. See also
Thornton, William, 382, 412 Ulysses mission, 24, 33, 343 microgravity
three-dimensional imaging, 265–269, 417 Umpqua Research Company, 494 Weiler, Edward, 327
3M Corporation, 21 Unicode, 145–146 Weinberger, Caspar, 43
thrusters, Reaction Control System, 62–63, 173, 176 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), 27, 42, Welding Institute, 208
tiles, insulation 50–51 weld overlays, 210
assembly and attaching of, 18–19 United Space Alliance (USA), 26, 37, 311 Wendell Hull & Associates, 491
attachment challenge, 304–305 United States Geological Survey, 369 Westar satellites, 23, 111, 116
densification of, 19, 203, 305 Unity Module (Node 1) (ISS), 27, 70, 160, 293 Wheelock, Douglas, 126, 154
design of, 185–186 University of Alabama, 216, 434 White, Bill, 40
inspection of, 77, 313 University of California San Diego, 475 “white room,” 406
nondestructive testing of, 202–204 University of Utah, 196 White Sands Ground Terminal, 104
overview, 5 Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite, 346, 351 White Sands Space Harbor, 75, 100
placement configuration, 184 Uranus, Hubble’s observations, 338 White Sands Test Facility (WSTF), 172–173, 176,
potential damage from ET foam, 193–194 Urban, David, 441 490–491
repairing, 189 Ursa Major, 327 Whitson, Peggy, 136, 153, 154
Ting, Samuel, 27 USAF Defense Support Program, 47 Whittle, David, 37
Tissue Equivalent Proportional Counter, 452, 453 USAF Space Test Program AFP-675, 47 Wide Field Camera 3, 323, 329
Titan, 43 US Microgravity Laboratory-1, 434, 439 Wide Field Planetary Camera 2, 325, 326
titanium, 273, 274, 280 US Microgravity Laboratory-2, 440, 466 wildlife hazard to launch, 316, 317
titanium zirconium molybdenum, 190 US Microgravity Payload-3, 441 Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, 336
Titan IV solid rocket motor, 165 US Space and Rocket Center, 467 Williams, Dafydd, 121, 373
Tool Time (TV series), 466 Utilization and Logistics Flights, 140 Williams, Donald, 476
topographical Earth mapping, 73, 360–369 Williams, Forman, 441
Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer, 349 V Wilson, Stephanie, 461
tourism and Space Shuttle, 467–468 vaccine design and microgravity, 419, 443 wind challenge, 93, 104
toxic contaminants in Orbiter, 400, 405 Van Allen belts (trapped radiation), 450 windows, Orbiter, 59, 299
Toys in Space Program, 476 Vandenberg Air Force Base, 20, 24, 44, 45, 50 wind tunnel testing, 227, 228, 229, 230–231
Tracking and Data Relay Satellites, 7, 24, 25, 33, 47 van Hoften, James, 23, 117, 463 Wing Leading Edge Impact Detection System, 38,
training Varicella-Zoster virus, 392 105, 106, 448
3-D imagery for, 269 Vehicle Assembly Building, 18, 80–81, 92 wings
astronauts for flight operations, 99–103 Vekilov, Peter, 434 delta wing design, 14, 43
countdown simulation, 84 Vela satellites, 330 leading edge thermal protection, 188
egress from launch pad, 84 Vellinger, John, 478 loads on, 233–234, 271
EVAs, 102, 120–121, 126–127, 261–263 ventricular assist device (VAD), 489–490 W. M. Keck Observatory, 338
flight controllers, 96–97 Venus Radar Mapper (Magellan), 24, 343 Wolf, David, 148
for long-duration flights, 148–149 Vertical Assembly Building, 181, 312, 317 women in Space Shuttle Program, 461–465
medical officers, 404 vertical integration of components prior to flight, Wyle Laboratories, Inc., 196, 488
virtual reality simulation, 261–263 80–81
Trajectory Control System, 99, 107 vestibular system, inner ear, 371, 372, 374, 375, 410, X
trajectory planning, 99, 132 417 X-band radar imaging, 106, 364
trajectory profile, 95–96, 162, 221–222, 237–238 vibration monitoring and dampening for SSME, x-ray crystallography, 433–435
transatlantic abort sites, 103, 234, 236 253–254, 277 x-ray observatory. See Chandra X-ray Observatory
transient luminous events, 353 Virtual Reality Laboratory, 102, 126–127, 265 x-rays, backscatter, 204, 205–206, 345–348, 349
transition phase, re-entry, 241 virtual reality simulation, 261–263
transonic speeds, 228 visual acuity, microgravity effects on, 373–375 Y
trapped radiation, 450 vitamin D loss during spaceflight, 389 Yamazaki, Naoko, 461
Trinh, Eugene, 434 volatile organic compounds, 399, 402 Yardley, John, 161
Truly, Richard, 36 Volkov, Sergei, 98 Yeltsin, Boris, 27
T-seals, 187, 188 von Braun, Werner, 22, 431 Young, John, 12, 465
Tsiolkovsky, Konstantin, 130 von Karman, Theodore, 183 Young, Laurence, 371
turbine wheel design, APU, 178 Voss, James, 24
turbopumps, SSME, 160, 162, 163–164, 211–213, Vought Corporation, 187 Z
252–253 Voyager, 24 Zamka, George, 154
two-duct engine powerhead, 162–163 vulcanization, 281 Zarya module, 27, 150
two-fault-tolerant Integrated Avionics System, zero-gravity aircraft, 121, 394
243–250 W
type Ia supernovae, 329, 333–335 Wakata, Koichi, 148
Tyvek® rain covers for Orbital Maneuvering System, Walheim, Rex, 127
174 Walker, Charles, 160, 442, 464
Wallops Flight Facility, 478
Walz, Carl, 139
Wang, Taylor, 439
water consumption and supply, 387–388, 397
water coolant loop system, 397
Index 553
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA Headquarters 9 0 000
300 E Street SW
Washington. DC 20546
www.nasa.gov
9 780 1 60868467